Cancer Rates Drop in the U.S.

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: TIME

For the first time since researchers began reporting national data on cancer, the statistics in a new report show that the rate of newly diagnosed cancers is declining in America; at the same time, the death rate for all cancers combined continues to fall.

"It's a validation of the efforts we are making in the fight against cancer," says Dr. Therese Bevers, medical director of clinical cancer prevention at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; she was not involved in the new paper.

Overall, cancer death rates have been dropping since the early 1990s — the most recent data suggest that death rates have decreased for 10 of the 15 most common causes of cancer death in the U.S. — in large part as a result of earlier screening and better treatments. But this year's Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer marks the first concurrent decline in incidence, or the rate of new cancer diagnoses. For both American men and women, the incidence of all cancers combined decreased 0.8% per year from 1999 through 2005. That overall decline was largely driven by men, however: cancer incidence dropped 1.8% per year from 2001 through 2005 for men but just 0.6% per year from 1998 through 2005 for women.

Over roughly the same time period, death rates from all cancers fell in both sexes: 1.8% per year on average from 2002 through 2005. Again, the decline was slightly steeper in men, whose cancer death rate fell 2% a year from 2001 through 2005; in women, the death rate dropped 1.6% per year from 2002 through 2005....

Although the trends are encouraging on the whole, some of the details of the data are knottier, highlighting gaps in access to health care. Cancer incidence was highest in black men, for instance, compared with men of other races. Among women, overall incidence was highest in white women, in whom the rate of lung cancer increased, while it remained stable in other populations. When parsed by race, cancer death rates were highest in blacks and lowest in Asians and Pacific Islanders. "The decrease in death rates could have been accelerated further by ensuring that all Americans have timely access to prevention measures," says the report's lead author, Ahmedin Jemal of the American Cancer Society. "We don't optimize what we know about cancer prevention and treatment to all segments of the population in the U.S."

That disparity is especially apparent when it comes to lung cancer. The report showed that lung-cancer incidence and death rates across the country varied widely, depending on the existence of smoking bans and the amount of state taxes on cigarettes....

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1862309,00.html

[HysteryDiagnosis]

1. More people are taking chemo and rad every morning as a

preventive measure... :sarcasm:

[OhioChick]

2. If this report is accurate....

It's great news. However, I know of so many people that currently have cancer and many worsening. :shrug:

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I do, too. I'm guessing we all do. Still, this little bit of movement is in the right direction...

and I hope it will continue.

[JeanGrey]

10. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. Trust me, I have lung cancer and

I know the stats. This article is VERY misleading. We have made very little progress on lung cancer and the rates are not dropping because more and more people are being diagnosed with lung cancer who either don't smoke or who quit decades ago.

Also we do NOT do adequate "early detection" for lung cancer. What a joke. If we did that we'd do cat scans every year, the reason why lung cancer is so deadly is usually by the time they get around to a cat scan the person is already dead. What a joke this article is.

[DeepModem Mom]

12. I've now discussed the article with a family member at dinner, and we were thinking the same.

Not only anecdotally from our own experience, and from so many more environmental toxins, etc., that can cause cancer -- we were skeptical.

One of our immediate family has had a cancer diagnosis twice, once as a young child -- and a close friend was diagnosed with lung cancer a couple of years ago (and doing well now). Sending good thoughts to you, Jean. Thanks for posting.

[JeanGrey]

13. You are welcome. Please take the time to go to this link

and hear someone I know from the Lung Cancer Alliance. It will give you the truth about lung cancer.

http://www.sandiego6.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoId=[e-mail] .com&navCatId=164

the video should start immediately. Thanks! Spread the word!@

[MadMaddie]

3. If more people don't have insurance and they decide not to

go to the dr for care then how they hell would the researchers be able to account for those cancer victims?

<snip>
"We don't optimize what we know about cancer prevention and treatment to all segments of the population in the U.S."
<snip>

[DeepModem Mom]

5. Do you think victims would eventually show up in "incidence" of cancer statistics --

even if their diagnosis and/or treatment came later than it should have?

[pitohui]

6. well the point is the economy has just collapsed

a LOT of the victims of cancer who will "eventually" show up are not going to show up this year or next year, i know lots of people who no longer go in for tests, myself among them actually

also a popular place for medical tourism, thailand, has probably just dropped out of the list of places you want to go to get affordable treatment, thanks to the current crap at the airport and the cont'd unrest there

[MadMaddie]

7. That's a good question

I do think some of the victims would show up in incidence even if their diagnosis and/or treatment came later than it should have as you noted.

I also think the victims would show up in death statistics, that's if they are autopsied.

There is another catagory of just not being counted. Those people that live with their illness until death and there is no autopsy.

[OhioChick]

8. Good Point...

"if they are autopsied."

[DeepModem Mom]

9. That's right. I was encouraged to see that the article noted "gaps in access to health care"...

in reporting these statistics. But, as you say, there is very likely a gap even in the statistics.

[codjh9]

11. I'm a cancer survivor. I know that survival rates have gotten better for several types of cancer,

due to both better drugs/treatment and more prevalent preventative testing, such as colonoscopies, but I doubt their claims that rates of initial diagnoses have fallen. Breast cancer, for example, afflicts WAY more women than 30-40-50 years ago, and I suspect it's due to pesticides and other chemicals that permeate our world these days. (And may I add, these things (pollution, chemical use, relaxed permits, less oversight on drug companies, etc etc etc) are allowed more under the Bush admin., which is from the party that claims to care about 'family', 'our grandchildren', blah blah blah... yeah, right. You'd sell your own grandmother for a buck.)

[JeanGrey]

14. And lung cancer kills twice as many women as breast cancer

and almost as many men. Sixty percent of those diagnosed will be non-smokers or smokers who quit as much as decades ago.

See up the thread for a good video link to someone from the Lung Cancer Alliance and the truth about lung cancer.............way more deadly than the other cancers combined and we get NOTHING for research.

[antimatter98]

15. This is because people can't afford health care and skip check ups

and live with whatever they perceive is or might be wrong with them.

I can't afford chemo. A friend recently had it, and each chemo shot
cost $17,000 which is health insurance paid for.

So we are in 'better health' because of the 44+ million who don't have
health care and unless they start to die, they won't go to the doc.

Another Bush legacy---better health STATISTICS.


P.S. for 2002: (google for other years)
It is estimated that about 555,500 Americans will die from cancer, corresponding to 1,500 deaths per day.

1500 deaths per DAY. Per Day. 1500 Americans per day.

http://www.cancure.org/statistics.htm

[RandomThoughts]

16. well lets see.

"We don't optimize what we know about cancer prevention and treatment to all segments of the population in the U.S."


So what does this mean, only some people get special treatment? Is this a bold statement that treatment is only for the special people?

Or if it is wrong, as a poster with cancer said above, is the whole thing just another 'story' where cancer is code for current issues in a certain group of people that like to talk that way.

Here is a funny one for you guys. The history channel makes up stuff to talk in code, or to alice people. No kidding. They narrate stories of the past in a way to tell stories of what is going on today within a certain group of people.

Proof:
3 or so years ago, they said Hannable crossed the Alps and only one elephant survived. They even had one of their fun fact red backgrounds as they said this. They said only one elephant made it across alps.

A few days ago, they said 40% of troops were lost in the alps, but all elephants made it through to fight battle at (forget name of place).

By actually having a memory, and clearly knowing that these statements were made. (I talked about the one elephant one often when I heard it. I thought it was odd.) I Remember it clearly. And yet now it is they all made it.

You can watch their shows, insert code for different factions, and actually get current event social/political news for a certain group. Or you can get a fun alice :)

[KurtNYC]

17. Smoking and alcohol use have declined but cell phone use is higher than

either of those ever was. Seems unlikely that any drop in rates will be long term.

[arikara]

18. I don't believe it

I know way more people than ever who either have cancer or have died from it. I remember when it used to be relatively rare.