Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine United States Science Technology

Cancer Death Rate in US Sees Sharpest One-Year Drop (nytimes.com) 53

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
Breakthrough treatments for lung cancer and melanoma have driven down cancer mortality overall -- and from 2016 to 2017 spurred the largest-ever decline. schwit1 shares a report: The cancer death rate in the United States fell 2.2 percent from 2016 to 2017 -- the largest single-year decline in cancer mortality ever reported, the American Cancer Society reported on Wednesday. Since 1991 the rate has dropped 29 percent, which translates to approximately 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if the mortality rate had remained constant. "Every year that we see a decline in cancer mortality rate, it's very good news," said Rebecca Siegel, director of surveillance research at the American Cancer Society and lead author of the organization's report, which was published online in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. Experts attributed the decline to the reduced smoking rates and to advances in lung cancer treatment. New therapies for melanoma of the skin have also helped extend life for many people with metastatic disease, or cancer that has spread to other parts of the body. Progress has slowed for colorectal, breast and prostate cancers, however. The rising rate of obesity among Americans, as well as significant racial and geographic disparities, likely explain why the decline in breast and colorectal cancer death rates has begun to taper off, and why the decrease in rates of prostate cancer has halted entirely.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cancer Death Rate in US Sees Sharpest One-Year Drop More

Cancer Death Rate in US Sees Sharpest One-Year Drop

Comments Filter:
  • Processed sugars are not a good thing. Probably contributed to the cancer numbers too.

    • America getting older is probably a big driver for the diabetes increases.

      • Except childhood diabetes is on the rise too.

        • I don't see the usefulness of the word "except" here. Both things can be true at the same time unless you have some information that says they are not. Personally I would blame a decrease in activity, or an increase in sitting still, as a major contributor as well.

      • Re:Cancers dropping, diabetes rising (Score:5, Funny)

        by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @01:52PM (#59599944)
        Until we manage to destroy that last enemy, people have to die of something so there's always going to be sliding rates. Decreasing the deaths due to cancer just means that people live long enough to have the chance to be killed by something else that goes wrong or some other disease that makes the rounds. Personally, I hope to live long enough that we get to the point where the leading cause of death among the elderly portions of the population is "misadventure" but we've got a ways to go on that front, and cancer is scarcely the biggest culprit when it comes to cause of demise among the oldest segments of the population.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by XXongo ( 3986865 )
          If the data is done correctly, it should be age-adjusted death rate. So, yes, the rate can go down for all causes.
          • I'm not quite sure I follow how that's possible. As far as I know every person currently on the planet will die at some point in the future. Everyone who previously was alive in the past at some point and isn't at present has already died. That makes the death rate for humans 100%. We might be able to stretch it out so that more people live to see older ages, but they still eventually die in the end.

            Did you perhaps mean that the rate goes down for specific causes such that everything gets lumped in a mys

            • I'm not quite sure I follow how that's possible.

              Short-run vs long-run.

              In the short run, death rates can fall for all causes because people are living longer.

              In the long-run, the total death rate can't fall because, as you said, everyone dies of something.

              TFA is about a decline in cancer deaths in absolute numbers, not a decline as a percentage of deaths.

        • I'd be thrilled if the thing most likely to do me in was misadventure at an age measured in centuries. The implication of adventure going badly as a cause of death ... at that age ... I don't want to die but that's a lot better than what humanity has traditionally had going on.

      • By the way, this is really a problem .. Young couples do not want to have children in this mess. However, progress has its advantages. My mother is given the best care and memory care facility [stpaulseniors.org]. This is the best that I can give her and I hope that my children will take care of me as well. Such medical centers were rare for the especially wealthy 10 years ago. It has become available now and I hope that it will improve. Having a disease and having a disease and care sounds different, doesn't it?

    • Cancer treatments have become much more effective in the very recent past, I hope to see the number continue to drop for some time

      While diet does control diabetes type 2, we still need medical advancements before seeing a significant drop in case

      • I'm curious....

        What races are more susceptible to colorectal, prostate and breast cancers?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          The human race.

          Or did you mean one of those phony constructs like negro or asian; invented to make it easier to discriminate or enslave?

          Or sorry, was I being overly politically correct? In Twitler's America we don't do that any more.
        • It's hard to separate what part of the results come down to race from other factors that can be associated with race (i.e., diet being chief among them) but there are some good [cancer.gov] statistics [cancer.gov] that break it down. In terms of all cancer, whites and blacks have higher rates of incidence than do other ethnicities (i.e., Asian, Native American, Hispanic) that are grouped categorically.

          For specific cancers, prostate cancer is disproportionately higher in black men as is lung cancer, thought in a much less pronounc

        • My doctor said Brazilians are the least susceptible to prostate cancer, statistically. I'm not sure what use that anecdote is but apparently they're also immune to male pattern baldness.

        • What races are more susceptible to colorectal, prostate and breast cancers?

          Breast cancer is most common among African-Americans and least among Asian-Americans. It is correlated with both obesity and breastfeeding. Blacks are most likely to be obese and least likely to breastfeed. Asians are least likely to be obese and most likely to breastfeed.

          Colorectal cancer has a regional bias. It is most common in the South, most likely because of diet. Since the South has more African-Americans, the rates are skewed in that direction, but it isn't clear if race itself is a factor.

          Also

      • Re:Cancers dropping, diabetes rising (Score:4, Insightful)

        by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @03:24PM (#59600270)

        While diet does control diabetes type 2, we still need medical advancements before seeing a significant drop in case

        The best medical treatment would be a safe and effective over-the-counter appetite suppressant.

        • Maybe... I have recently started introducing fasting periods into my life. Simply not eating for 14 hours at a stretch can feel MISERABLE if you are used to high sugar intake.

          What sort of appetite suppressant were you considering?

          • What sort of appetite suppressant were you considering?

            One that works with minimal effort by normal people.

            So fasting is out.

            • Of course, 14 hours without eating isn't really "fasting". Breakfast at 7am, lunch at noon, supper at 5pm and 14 hours without food. Not too different than most people eat normally.

              • Yes, this is called "Intermittent Fasting", here is an interesting article from Harvard Medical Blog: Intermittent fasting: Surprising update [harvard.edu]

                I liken it to the fasting that you have to do before a blood test. It isn't going to make you skinny, but it is going to force your body to melt some fat, and it seems that metabolic activity has positive outcomes.

                Initially they tried to get people to eat every other day, a 24 hour fast period. Then, faced with people finding that too difficult, they studied shorter fa

          • If you can afford it, might consider getting a health coach. It worked great for me.

      • While diet does control diabetes type 2

        So do some drugs for some prople, without radical alteration of diet.

    • Processed sugars are not a good thing. Probably contributed to the cancer numbers too.

      Yeah. There's a link with health and vitality with high caloric consumption. Processed sugars and meat consumption are a good catalyst for cancerous developments.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @01:56PM (#59599960)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Sugar followed a similar trend - industry efforts covered up the scale of the negative health impact for decades, while the American diet - followed by that of the rest of the world - grew steadily higher and higher in sugar. Some children's breakfast cereals are still one-third sugar by mass.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

      Second link in the summary (to the actual paper), Figure 2.

    • So false. You should watch Ken Burn's documentary on cancer on Netflix.

      Cancer research did nothing for a long time after that was signed.

      The only things that made a difference was surgeon general's warnings and immunotherapy.

      Immunotherapy could have been a thing 100 years ago, but it isn't 'intellectually interesting' to medical academics.

      Those elites are the ones you should be directing your anger against.

  • Missing from the summary but important as well (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @02:12PM (#59600024)

    I noticed that missing from the summary but is also highly important. Detection. Methods for detecting cancer in the early stages when it is more treatable have become more sophisticated. All the medicine in the world is of no good if the problem isn't detected in a period when it is most treatable. There may come a time when medicine reaches a point where later stages of cancer are more treatable, but till then, early detection of cancer is paramount to curbing cancer rates.

  • My guess, though I haven't looked up the stats, is that drug overdoses may be making up for the reduction in cancer deaths. There may be significant age differences when deaths occur for cancer vs. drug caused deaths, though. There also seems to be a geographic relation ship for the drug OD deaths considering deaths by opiod OD rates.

  • I hear some drug companies made a profit though. Hope that's ok.

  • What isn't mentioned is that cancer deaths are also associated to life length and life quality. A population will see an increase in cancer mortality as a result of individuals living longer and better. Consequently, should mortality from other sources increase, mortality from cancer will decrease. If you look at Sudan and Angola, they have very low cancer mortality. Is it because they have the best healthcare in the world? No, it's because they rarely live long enough for cancer to become an issue.

    So, is c

  • We can easily increase the death rate (Score:5, Insightful)

    by davebarnes ( 158106 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @03:13PM (#59600234)

    Just abolish ObamaCare and many people will stop getting colonoscopies.
    That will definitely reverse the colon cancer survival rate.

    I avoided getting a colonoscopy because of:
    1. Cost of $2-3K pre-ObamaCare
    2. Zero history in my family and my parents were still alive at 90.
    So, I waited until Medicare. "Congratulations--you have won the cancer lottery." Had 14cm of colon removed and 6+ months of chemo.

  • I've read that immunotherapy has been a major breakthrough in a number of cancers. It worked amazingly well for Jimmy Carter. [latimes.com]

  • And was waiting for CNN to explain to me why this is terrible.

    • It's terrible because now the chance of you inheriting anything from your boomer gramps before you qualify for retirement yourself shrinks to zero, that's why!

  • Cancer.. (Score:3)

    by Z80a ( 971949 ) on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @09:14PM (#59601382)

    Just get cancer and die, cancer.

  • You know why cancer is one of the leading causes for deaths in the first world? Because we finally get old enough for it to BE that leading cause of death. We have (or had, I get to that) pretty much eliminated everything else that could have gotten us first. Other diseases are pretty much a thing of the past, our nutrition is plentiful (way too plentiful, actually) and healthy (well... kinda-sorta, at least you could if you wanted to), accidents and bodily breakdowns don't lead to death anymore (at least W

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close