

U.S. cancer deaths have fallen 22% since 1991 - tokenadult
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/31/us-cancer-casualties-idUSKBN0K918220141231

======
InclinedPlane
A note to everyone wishing to comment on this:

1\. Read the article, or at least skim it before commenting. The rates listed
are population normalized, it would be a very bizarre thing indeed if some
other cause of death was preferentially killing people before they got old
enough to die of cancer yet somehow still caused overall life expectancy to
increase.

2\. Acquaint yourself with some basic statistics on causes of death in recent
times, such as this easy to read infographic from a few months ago:
[http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-
americans-d...](http://www.bloomberg.com/dataview/2014-04-17/how-americans-
die.html)

As you'll see, death rates _for all age groups_ have been in decline across
the board since 1991. People aren't dying due to obesity or diabetes instead
of cancer, they're just dying less, mostly regardless of cause.

So please stop needlessly injecting your speculation and biases into the
comments here, please only put forward arguments which are consistent with the
well-established facts as we know them. Thanks.

~~~
dghughes
OK going to College brb

Then maybe you'll allow me to comment, sir!

------
aosmith
This is because of effective treatment. I was dx'ed with "fatal" cancer just
over 10 years ago... Modern medicine FTW.

~~~
tsotha
I doubt it has anything to do with treatment. On average we've been able to
add a whopping four months to longevity since the '70s, and even that's
questionable since we have better diagnostic equipment.

You were really, really lucky.

A drop in cancer deaths is probably related to two things: a drop in smoking,
and an increase in obesity that's killing people before they can get cancer.

~~~
Gatsky
Sorry but how can you doubt anything when you have no idea of the details of
this person's disease? I think it is a bit off colour for you to impose your
ideas on their actual experience. There are definitely cancer types which used
to be fatal but can now be cured with therapy in the majority of patients,
such as advanced germ cell tumours. Google it.

~~~
tsotha
I didn't mean his disease. I meant cancer treatment in general. When I said he
was lucky I meant he was lucky given his diagnosis.

And yes, I'm aware there are curable cancers. Hell, there are skin cancers
that have never been particularly dangerous. But the number of types that used
to be deadly that we can now cure is a drop in the bucket. Like I said - four
months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you alive for a few months
longer. Otherwise it may as well be 1970.

~~~
wdewind
> Like I said - four months. In the vast majority of cases we can keep you
> alive for a few months longer.

Can you cite this? I suspect it's an average, and thus not very useful. (Ie:
some people are living a lot longer, enough to drive the overall average up 4
months, not most people are living 4 months longer).

~~~
tsotha
It's from this book: [http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-
Biography/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Emperor-All-Maladies-
Biography/dp/1439170916)

Highly recommended reading, BTW, though it's a bit depressing.

For the average to go up only four months either we're doing really well
against a tiny percentage of cancers or we're doing generally a tiny bit
better against most cancers. Or some combination of the two. Either way you
look at it that's an indication of lack of progress.

------
sbjustin
I suspect with no evidence to support that some of this may be related to
people dying of other things instead on cancer such as heart disease, etc.

Another interesting fact is if you look at US deaths, fewer die between the
age of 60 and 80 than before and after. Seems like if you can make it to sixty
you'll die of old age or some random cancer.

~~~
DanBC
> Another interesting fact is if you look at US deaths, fewer die between the
> age of 60 and 80 than before and after. Seems like if you can make it to
> sixty you'll die of old age or some random cancer

Medicaid kicks in at age 65. I suspect that people over 65 get
disproportionately more funding which is why the US does well with people over
that age.

------
danieltillett
So what cause of death went up?

Edit. To answer my own question it seems to be the very vague "All other
causes" [1].

1\.
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db88.htm)

~~~
tokenadult
No other cause went up to a meaningful degree in terms of _death rates_ ,
which is what the submitted article mostly focused on. "The overall rate of
deaths from cancer decreased from about 215 per 100,000 people in 1991 to
about 169 per 100,000 people in 2011, researchers found." An article in a
series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past
150 years. Here’s why"[1] Provides some of the background.

Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising
throughout the developed countries of the world.[2]

Yes, people all around the world eventually die of something, but they are
dying at ever later ages after longer and longer spans of healthy living all
around the world. That's why we can say that death rates are going down. As
the link you found after your comment edit says, "Although single year
improvements in mortality were often small, the age-adjusted risk of dying
dropped 60 percent from 1935 to 2010."

After edit: another participant here in another comment links to CDC documents
that plainly show the drop in all-cause death rates in the United States.

[1]
[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html)

[2]
[http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...](http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html)

~~~
iscrewyou
169 out of 10,000. For some reason, this number sounds more scary than the
percentage.

~~~
danohuiginn
probably because you missed a zero. 169 out of 100,000

------
ladzoppelin
So are people getting cancer more or less that they were in 1991?

~~~
ArkyBeagle
"For those years, deaths from cancer also decreased by 1.8 percent among men
and fell by 1.4 percent among women."

I hate to be this way, but as horrible as cancer is, the modes of death behind
it are not to be ... advertised. My mother in law went to Alzheimers. Wouldn't
wish that on anyone. As Hank Williams said, "I'll never get out of this world
alive".

~~~
ladzoppelin
"Deaths" decreased but what about cases of cancer? Is it constant?

EDIT: Found this exert after going through the whole Cancer Institute pdf: "
The overall rate of cancer cases (incidence) remained stable for women between
2007 and 2011, but declined by 1.8 percent per year for men.

Men experienced relatively rapid declines in cases of colon cancer (3.6
percent per year), lung cancer (3 percent per year) and prostate cancer (2.1
percent per year) during that period, the report found.

But there's been no change in incidence rates for breast cancer. And the
report found that certain cancers are even on the rise. For example, thyroid
cancer cases increased an average 4.5 percent per year between 2007 and 2011,
and liver cancer cases have increased by more than 3 percent.

The increase in liver cancer cases is largely due to hepatitis C infection,
mainly through intravenous drug use and sharing needles in the 1960s, 1970s
and 1980s, Jemal said.

The rise in thyroid cancer cases cannot be easily explained, Jemal said. Some
suspect the condition may be now overdiagnosed due to the overuse of imaging
scans and ultrasound, he said, but there's also been an increase in the size
of cancerous lesions found.

"For thyroid, it's very difficult to explain what's occurring," he said"

------
nkangoh
It's very difficult to say if this is good news or not. Is it not possible
that people are actually dying from other things that have actually increased
since 1991 that occur before cancer? In other words, couldn't the other
illnesses that occur before cancer explain this decrease if those have been
increasing?

~~~
1123581321
It's a fair point to raise. I answer that since lifespans have increased,
there isn't anything that is killing people before cancer often enough to
account for the drop in cancer deaths.

~~~
nkangoh
This is true, but it's also possible that the very treatment that supposedly
decreases cancer deaths also decreases the "other illnesses" such that the
distance between the cancer death and other illness death is constant. In this
case, lifespans could increase and still result in other illnesses killing
more than cancer in spite of increased life expectancies.

Either way, we are living longer though.

------
Gatsky
This is good news. Unless of course you are currently dying of cancer.
Treatment for the most common solid tumours remains woefully inadequate,
unless you compare it to even more woeful older therapies. Lung cancer, breast
cancer, colon cancer, these all remain horrible diseases, that result in an
untimely and unpleasant death. We are replacing mortality with expensive
morbidity that approaches death asymptotically. This produces a better looking
survival curve, but is it actually better?

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
Good news on the colon cancer, though. Exact Sciences released an effective
screen for it recently, catching pre-cancer as well. It is a slow growth
cancer that can be treated very well at early stages. My guess is that they
will drop colon cancer way down the cancer mortality list.

~~~
wahnfrieden
Any info on how to take advantage of this development?

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
I did by buying EXAS when the new CEO came in at about $2. The previous
management didn't have what it took to get it off the ground. The availability
to buy the test came out this quarter so sales numbers are not in yet (but it
is fully reimbursed at ~$500, where management said they would make a killing
at $300). So after doing your due diligence, it may be worth waiting for the
sales numbers to come out and buy on any weakness.

The other way to take advantage is to get yourself screened :)

Disclosure: I own shares

