Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Medicine

Cancer Death Rates Fall One-Third in US Since 1990s as Prevention Efforts Take Hold (economist.com) 91

Posted by msmash from the encouraging-feedback dept.
Cancer death rates in the U.S. have fallen by approximately one-third since the 1990s when adjusted for age, according to data cited in a new analysis of global cancer trends. The decline represents a steady, year-over-year reduction that began in the early 1990s and continues across developed countries.

Prevention efforts have contributed substantially to the decline. Reduced smoking rates in wealthy nations prevented more than 3 million cancer deaths since 1975 in America alone. Britain's HPV vaccination program, launched in 2008 for teenage girls, produced a 90% reduction in cervical cancer rates among women in their 20s within 15 years. Treatment advances have transformed outcomes for specific cancers. Childhood leukemia, once virtually fatal, now has a five-year survival rate above 90%.

Researchers have identified inexpensive drugs with cancer-prevention properties, including aspirin, which cuts bowel cancer risk in half for patients with Lynch syndrome. Future progress faces obstacles, however, including high treatment costs and planned cuts to the National Cancer Institute under the Trump administration. China overtook America as the primary source of cancer research in 2025.

Cancer Death Rates Fall One-Third in US Since 1990s as Prevention Efforts Take Hold More | Reply

Cancer Death Rates Fall One-Third in US Since 1990s as Prevention Efforts Take Hold

Comments Filter:

  • The Tinted One will take credit in 3...2...1...

  • I was told seed oils caused cancer /s

    • You just have to counteract the seed oil cancer causing properties with good old colloidal silver and a little bit of homeopathic medicine.

      Also make sure you shove a handful of crystals up your ass every other day. Magnets work too.

      I mean, mother fucking magnets? How do they work?

      • You just have to counteract the seed oil cancer causing properties with good old colloidal silver and a little bit of homeopathic medicine. Also make sure you shove a handful of crystals up your ass every other day. Magnets work too. I mean, mother fucking magnets? How do they work?

        You never struck me as a Juggalo before. But apparently magic's all up in this bitch.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Rinnon ( 1474161 )

        I mean, mother fucking magnets? How do they work?

        C'mon man, it's common sense. You see, the body needs lots of iron, especially for the blood. If that iron is all out of sync with the bodies natural magnetic field, it causes strain on the body. This leads to cancer. Magnets help get all that iron in alignment with the bodies natural magnetic field. It's a non-invasive process, but you need to keep up the treatment. Once a week should do it! /s

        Seriously, for the love of god: SLASH-S

      • "mother fucking magnets? How do they work?"

        It's pretty obvious. By summoning spirits or demons and with appropriate rituals binding them within the metal to perform menial tasks.

      • Also make sure you shove a handful of crystals up your ass every other day. Magnets work too.

        If I'm magnetic from the coronavirus MRNA vaccines does that count?

    • On the "con" side of all this....

      People do not look nearly as cool as they once did when smoking cigarettes was the norm.

      Hell, even today in movies...while not as prevalent as it was in the past...they have folks on screen smoking to look cool, and well....it works.

      Damn...I miss smoking.

      I mean, when you had a cocktail or beer in your left hand and a smoke in your right hand, the world just felt right. Oh well, in order to still have some danger in my life, I still have my motorcycle to ride....

      Hopefull

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by skam240 ( 789197 )

        A smoke and a drink go great together. Sadly a smoke and ladies do not, the clinging smell is a problem.

        Having made out with a lady who was a smoker before I get it too. It was kind of gross.

        • A smoke and a drink go great together. Sadly a smoke and ladies do not, the clinging smell is a problem.

          Having made out with a lady who was a smoker before I get it too. It was kind of gross.

          Back in the day...when both parties were smoking AND drinking enough....it didn't bother anyone much to make out and more after...

          ;)

        • If you stuff burning leaves in your mouth, a drink may be a good idea to help put it out.

      • Re: Weird (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @02:29PM (#65527444)
        Like most fashion, it only looked cool to those who bought in to it. The rest of us didn't ignore the disgusting smoker's cough, the stained fingers, the bad breath, the messy ashing and butt-flinging, and the discoloured EVERYTHING. The addictive drugs did what addictive drugs do, but making you look cool wasn't on the list.

      • I've spotted a gap in the market - waterproof cigarettes. Drink and smoke at the same time. Alternating is so last century.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        I'm pretty certain an electric motorcycle will be at least as dangerous as a gas one.

        • I'm pretty certain an electric motorcycle will be at least as dangerous as a gas one.

          Not really. You can hear the horns of traffic warning you. You don't incite road rage with the roaring of your motor. You also don't wake up your neighbours at 3 in the morning revving your engine just to be an ass one time too many while they have a gun.

  • Great (Score:4, Interesting)

    by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @11:38AM (#65527008)

    Good thing we zeroed funding for cancer research right as we're starting to turn the tide against it. Go #MAGA.

    • What does it matter if someone makes outrageous claims, or if others believe him.

      • https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/08... [cnn.com]

        What good is having Google if you don't know how to use it?

      • Re: Great (Score:4, Informative)

        by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @12:53PM (#65527200)
        Trump's proposed budget for FY26 does include slashing the national cancer institute by 37%, which is huge. But that hasn't passed yet.

        In contrast the "big beautiful bill" that did pass didn't cut cancer funding. (It did include the Orphan Cures Act, which cuts regulation and eases reimbursement for some diseases including cancer, but doesn't directly increase funding for them).

        So, it's premature to declare drastic cancer cuts as a done deal, although it's a big threat, although it's not "zeroing out" federal funding.

        Also how much of cancer research is funding by the federal govt vs private industry I'm not sure - but private research certainly won't be discontinued, since it's profitable. One of the cancer medicines I'm on is $23,000 per little IV baggie. Not sure how much of that goes straight into dividends and buybacks vs research.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        What outrageous claims?

  • On the flip side ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Freischutz ( 4776131 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @11:40AM (#65527012)

    Cancer Death Rates Fall One-Third in US Since 1990s as Prevention Efforts Take Hold

    On the flip side, contagious disease rates are increasing sharply as Trump administration charges forward with systematically dismantling vaccination efforts under the banner of dumbfuck.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 )
      Also the Senate and House are cutting billions in funding to fight AIDS because of religious lunatics who think it's a punishment from God for homosexuals.

      Never mind the fact that if you actually read the Bible and knew what the fuck anyone in the Bible was talking about you would understand that homosexuality isn't prohibited.

      But as usual who the hell cares what the Bible says or means. It says or means whatever it needs to

      • Re:On the flip side ... (Score:4, Informative)

        by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @12:37PM (#65527150)

        It literally is prohibited. But so what, the Bible was written by a bunch of different people with varying philosophies and inspirations.

        Leviticus 20:13
        13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

        1 Corinthians 6:9
        Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          It literally is prohibited.

          So is wearing clothes made of mixed materials and women teaching.

          • Yes. Your point?

            • I've not followed the whole thread but perhaps the point is that the Bible is a bunch of inconsistent bullshit from thousands of years ago which has as much relevance to anything as the musical tone generated when a mosquito farts (or perhaps less) and whose sole purpose is to dismantle any tendency towards critical thinking exhibited by those who are exposed to it?

          • Let me guess. You think it is ridiculous that wearing clothes of mixed materials should be banned, therefore in spite of the Bible explicitly banning it you rather proclaim that the Bible doesn’t actually ban it? Instead of using it as proof that the Bible was written by a bunch of JK Rowling level writers .. you rather say that it doesn’t really mean the ridiculous stuff.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Big deal, read all of that Leviticus 20.xx. It also prohibits pointed beards, wearing a garment of two different textiles, etc.

          As 1 Corinthians 6:9, they didn't even have a term "homosexual" when that was written. And it had to be translated from the Greek, and it was written several generations after Jesus got nailed up for calling himself the King-O-The-Jews. All Pilate had to hear was "King-O-The-Jews", and that meant sedition because there was only one Emperor and he was in Rome. So he had him nailed up

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dskoll ( 99328 )

        Male sexuality is prohibited in the Bible. Female homosexuality isn't because probably the guys who wrote the Bible couldn't even conceive of women having their own sexual desires and behaviors.

        But more to the point: Who gives a f*ck what the Bible says? It's utterly irrelevant.

      • Also the Senate and House are cutting billions in funding to fight AIDS because of religious lunatics who think it's a punishment from God for homosexuals.

        Source please. The cuts in AIDS funding seems to be more a function of general cut backs than anything specifically targeted. But feel free to correct me, and I agree there were a few fundies out there who did claim that at one point, before even they realised that AIDS is an equal opportunities killer across the world.

        • They're reeing about cuts to funding for medical programs in Africa that American taxpayers were funding.

          When 25% of Americans can't even afford to get their own medical care.

          At least Medicine stopped injecting kids with SV40 promoters from green monkey cells from 1970-2021. Massive cancer cause.

      • Also the Senate and House are cutting billions in funding to fight AIDS because of religious lunatics who think it's a punishment from God for homosexuals.

        I thought I saw on the news the other day, that they found and have released a new drug that prevents (and maybe also cures?) AIDS.....

        So, it would appear the solution to banging your butt buddy is already here now.....so, why keep spending more money on it?

        Why not direct that money to a disease that really touches everyone no matter your choice of sex

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I thought I saw on the news the other day, that they found and have released a new drug that prevents (and maybe also cures?) AIDS.....

          Unless my Google-fu is failing me, there's no cure for AIDS. ( Only seven people ever have been cured of AIDS [who.int] via stem cell transplants, which are only attempted on people about to die of cancer.) The latest news is a new version of the anti-virals which only need to be given every six months to protect from AIDS. Certainly an improvement, but not a cure. And stopping managing AIDS in Africa is a recipe for breeding new strains.

          Why not direct that money to a disease that really touches everyone no matter your choice of sexual friction, like cancer?

          A strange way to pose that question given one of reductions in cancer achieved ov

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by zeeky boogy doog ( 8381659 )
      Not to mention that that we now have an effective vaccine against HPV, which by preventing HPV reduces the risk of cervical cancer something like 90% and so it's de facto an anti-cancer vaccine... and the lunatic right actively oppose it because it will make teenage girls have sex (or more specifically, because it prevents them from being able to blackmail women with threats of "consequences")..

      pro tip, dipshits: of all the things that might possibly dissuade a hormonal teenager from fucking, "the possib

  • It's not prevention, it's tons of way better treatment and earlier detection.

    • It's not prevention, it's tons of way better treatment and earlier detection.

      Anti-smoking efforts and alternatives have been very effective in the US. Everybody smoked in the 80's, and now I can't remember the last time I saw someone with a cigarette. While not cancer, both of my parents died from smoking related COPD. Cigarettes are bad.

      • "Anti-smoking efforts and alternatives have been very effective in the US."

        No, they haven't.

        "both of my parents died from smoking related [illness]"

        That's how it actually happened.

    • It's not prevention, it's tons of way better treatment and earlier detection.

      It's both. Sharply decreased smoking and increased prevention like the HPV vaccine are significant.

      However, it's mostly prevention. For example, NIH researchers recently published a paper on modeling with results that "between 1975 and 2020 ... prevention and screening interventions accounted for 4.75 million, or 80%, of the averted deaths."

  • Be thankful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Thursday July 17, 2025 @11:49AM (#65527032) Homepage
    While it's important to keep working on issues of the day, it's also important to look back at where we were and how far we've come. Progress like this is based on small incremental improvements over decades and even centuries. About a hundred years ago, the death rate from measles in the US averaged about 5 per 100,000, which would mean roughly 15,000 deaths per year today just in the US. All those lives are being saved *every year* just due to a single vaccine program. We need to be thankful for the work that prior generations did that are truly amazing and have improved our lives immensely. It's trendy to complain about how bad life is, but that's disingenuous when you realize how bad people had it throughout history. Heck, just look at the infant mortality rate in the US [macrotrends.net].

    • We need to be thankful for the work that prior generations did that are truly amazing and have improved our lives immensely.

      Have you been paying attention to the news this year?

      • It's amazing what the tens of thousands of dollars of education spending across the USA has not achieved.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        Human progress is hardly monotonically improving. But the general positive trend over time is substantial and impossible to ignore. While we're throwing away many of the substantial gains we've made over the last 75 years (globalized trade, a rules based global order and the relative worldwide peace it provides), we're not likely to completely lose these things, and a few years of seeing what life is like without them will probably change people's opinions in the years to come. Mostly history acts like a

        • But the general positive trend over time is substantial and impossible to ignore.

          I'm not. I'm saying it's being sabotaged. You've acknowledged that, too, so it's not like we're in disagreement. Am I supposed to appreciate what hasn't been damaged/destroyed, or should I be advocating against doing that damage?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by RobinH ( 124750 )
            You should first study the long winding path that brought us to this point, to give you perspective, and then you should look at current events as the tiny small footsteps that they are when compared to the long stretch of time. Sometimes we stumble on long walks. When this happens we should avoid spending all our time despairing at the road stretching out endlessly ahead of us, and take some time to appreciate the distance we've already covered. Then we need to return our eyes to the ground before us an

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by dskoll ( 99328 )

      You are right. But now, unfortunately, a lot of people take this progress for granted, and forget how bad things were back in the bad old days. And so we see backsliding on vaccination rates out of laziness as well as conspiracy theories.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by RobinH ( 124750 )
        We happened to go through a period of many decades (perhaps even a hundred years) called modernism, where the populace generally respected experts and expertise to make our lives better. But post-modernism has long challenged this idea of faith in science, expertise, and the enlightenment, and there have been many very public failures of experts to do the right thing over that time. From Thalidomide, to toxic chemicals being dumped into the environment, to the Challenger disaster, to the second Iraq war,

        • It's hard to get them to believe that outsourcing all the manufacturing to China, or bringing in lots of foreign laborers is a good idea because it makes the GDP numbers go up

          Not really. Tere are millions of well educated Americans who believe those things and will not except any evidence to the contrary. They think people are ignorant if they don't accept GDP as a good measure of their economic well-being.

          putting the reins of government back in the hands of trusted experts starts by regaining trust, and we have a long way to go before we get there.

          It is precisely this belief in authority that created the problem. Its the Hamiltonian notion that people can't accurately determine their own interests and they should be ruled by a knowledgeable elite who can. The result, of course, is a government run by an elite that serve

          • Its the Hamiltonian notion that people can't accurately determine their own interests

            That part is true.

            they should be ruled by a knowledgeable elite who can.

            That is hard. The people who want to be elite rulers are often not the people who have elite skills.

            • The people who want to be elite rulers are often not the people who have elite skills.

              The problem with elites is that they almost always think that what they know is much more important than what they don't know. And the corollary that what other people know is not all that important.

              After all, that's why they are elite and others aren't. The reality of self-government is that it requires incorporating a huge range of experience and knowledge. Well beyond what any "elite" is capable of providing. Which is why the United States has turned into an authoritarian government where "insiders don'

    • It's trendy to complain about how bad life is, but that's disingenuous when you realize how bad people had it throughout history.

      it mostly comes from people whose entire perspective is their immediate, personal experience.

  • So you get to see your kid die at ten instead of five? I *guess* that's better?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by backslashdot ( 95548 )

      It's kind of weird but typically they only measure cancer survival rate for 5 years. The premise is that if someone can survive 5 years, they're likely cured. As in, they only check that people survived up to the 5 year point. The reason for that is usually cancer patients are old, so if someone dies 6 years after they were diagnosed of cancer it might have been from something else.

      In the case of childhood leukemia, the ones who survived the 5 years are likely to have been cured and still around.

      • Aah. Yeah. That sounds a lot more positive. Thanks.

      • The 5 year rate is about people who make it that long, yes, but expressed as a percentage of people who make it.

        The 5 year survival rate for my cancer is 9%. The median survival rate is 3 years. So, if you make it 3 years, you're in the top half. Great! But let me tell you what. That is a tough, absolutely fucking miserable 3 years. You also all but certainly only got 2 years or less left.

        I just passed the 3 year mark in April. I've got no reason to believe the daily misery for me and my family will do any

        • I am very sorry to hear that. I googled the 9% chance cancer .. is it pancreatic? We all have to get on the bus sometime. Seems like the current (seemingly) unevenly distributed cyclical structure of the universe made it so good things end, but then so do bad. Eventually.

    • Let me tell you what, pal.

      No, you know what? I'm not even going to bother.

      Fuck off.

  • Preventing cancer is better than not having it. There isn't money to be made in preventing it, only costs due to having to change chemicals, pollution law compliance, etc.

    • There is a lot of money to be made.

      If you could somehow accurately and convincingly predict someone's odds of getting cancer due to circumstances under their control, and likewise convincing demonstrate what they're in for if they don't change their ways, you could make serious money from that.

      Spoken as someone diagnosed with stage 4 cancer at 51 years old.

      Additionally, if a company with that kind of technology and business model were permitted (under law, I guess) to claim an annual bounty from health insu

  • Smoking has fallen? Some TV shows have 95% of characters in 80% of scenes chain smoking. I suppose these two things are compatible - churn is perhaps higher than attrition due to death from cancer.

    I'd love to know the CAC and CLV per smoker.

  • But what of quality of life for cancer patients? Has that improved?

    I am someone who was diagnosed with a stage 4 cancer and given a 91% of being dead within 5 years. I am now just over 3 years into it.

    I wish the doctors would have just told me, straight up, that my life would completely suck until the day I die, back on day 1. I would have asked for life-ending treatment the same day, had they just been more honest with me.

    I've lost track of how many rounds of chemo therapy I've had in the last 3 years.
    But

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.

Close