3 ms·

> You're claiming that Australians are less likely to see stage IV cancer than Americans due to a worse healthcare system in America I'm claiming that Australi

> You're claiming that Australians are less likely to see stage IV cancer than Americans due to a worse healthcare system in America I'm claiming that Australian citizens are more likely to bring cancer to their provider when it's still at stage 1, because the citizens do not risk bankruptcy when seeking diagnosis and treatment, resulting in treatment of cancers beginning prior to their reaching stage 4. This would, if true, create a scenario where: In Australia, the few stage 4 cancers seen are the cancers that failed treatment at stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3; they are extremely likely to be fatal, as they've already failed essentially every treatment available. But in United States, the stage 1-2-3 "this is treatable" filtering out isn't occurring, because patients with cancer are waiting for age 65 to seek diagnosis, and so our stage 4 treatment success rate is higher because we didn't treat the treatable cancers earlier in the stages. Do the above comparisons of AU vs US 'stage 4 survival rates' take into account the successful treatments at stages 1-3 that would presumably be occurring in AU? Do they take into account the incidences of 'this would have been treatable if diagnosed in stages 1-3' that are presumably occuring in US? EDIT: Do they hold true for each individual type of cancer? Do they hold true when normalized for spending on a given type of cancer as a percentage of all cancer spending? I'm aware that these are not easy things to compare or assess, and I understand that it's preferable to some to make no statement at all rather than make an approximation that doesn't hold up to a full-power statistical analysis. If someone does know of such a thesis, I suppose my most compact question would be: "For each type of cancer: Does the Australian health care system tend to diagnose earlier than the United States health care system, provide care at a higher or lower total cost of treatment, with a higher or lower rate of success?"

sxg 6y ago
> I'm claiming that Australian citizens are more likely to bring cancer to their provider when it's still at stage 1, because the citizens do not risk bankruptcy when seeking diagnosis and treatment, resulting in successful treatment of cancers prior to their reaching stage 4. I understand your argument: you're saying that by treating stage 1–3 patients early on, the stage 4 patients will have a shorter survival. But in the US, stage 4 patients also include many patients that would have been stage 1–3 in a different country, and because these cancers may not be quite as aggressive as the other stage 4 cancers, the 5-year survival will be higher. I'm on board with this part of your argument. The part that doesn't hold up is patients regularly coming in to their doctors with symptomatic early stage cancer. In early stages, many cancers are completely asymptomatic. Even when we screen completely asymptomatic patients for early stage cancer in the US, we don't actually see clear cut overall mortality benefits. So how is it that these Australians are presenting to their doctors so early on with cancer symptoms? EDIT: The holy grail of cancer screening has three features: - Identifies dangerous cancers shortly after they form - Perfectly separates cancer from non-cancer - Patients live longer Medical science itself (regardless of healthcare system and country) can't reliably meet the above three goals. So I'm skeptical that patients having easy access to medical care like in Australia would result in improved cancer survival.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  That is an excellent question, thank you for clarifying.
- thret 6y ago
  Perhaps Australians present to their doctors early for all symptoms, and it is the doctors who diagnose cancer? I can't speak for everyone in Australia but for me, if I am sick I have to see a doctor in order to get 'sick leave'. I have unlimited paid sick leave provided a doctor has recommended it. It also doesn't cost me anything to see a doctor or get any kind of test or treatment/surgery done - it is all covered by work.
  - sxg 6y ago
    Sure, I'm confident that Australians wouldn't hesitate to see their doctors given the low barrier to access. But the real question is how does any doctor in any country diagnose an early stage cancer? This isn't a trivial problem. These patients are often asymptomatic, and objective physical exam findings are not easy to elicit or entirely non-existent. At this point, the only thing a doctor can do is screen every patient coming through the door for cancer via CT, MR, mammography, colonoscopy, etc., but this doesn't translate into clear cut clinically meaningful benefits that helps patients live longer. You often end up irradiating non-cancer patients and creating new cancers, or you selectively diagnose non-aggressive cancers (length-time bias) and unnecessarily put patients through surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (i.e. over-treatment). Some fraction of these patients then go on to live shorter lives as a result of the over-treatment. This particular issue we're discussing is more of a medical science problem than a healthcare system problem. Anecdote from med school: on my surgery rotation, I had a ~70 year-old patient recently diagnosed with early stage colon cancer on a screening colonoscopy. He had undergone chemotherapy and was now about to have the cancerous part of his colon removed. Surgery was a success, and the patient recovered in the hospital for a few days before we sent him home. The day after he goes home, we found out he died from a massive pulmonary embolism, likely a post-operative complication from surgery. Alternatively, had this patient not had a screening colonoscopy, we never would have found his early stage cancer. Based on his cancer stage, he likely would've lived another 10–15 years without treatment (age ~85-90). Instead, our interventions killed him a few months after diagnosis.

sxg 6y ago

> I'm claiming that Australian citizens are more likely to bring cancer to their provider when it's still at stage 1, because the citizens do not risk bankruptcy when seeking diagnosis and treatment, resulting in successful treatment of cancers prior to their reaching stage 4. I understand your argument: you're saying that by treating stage 1–3 patients early on, the stage 4 patients will have a shorter survival. But in the US, stage 4 patients also include many patients that would have been stage 1–3 in a different country, and because these cancers may not be quite as aggressive as the other stage 4 cancers, the 5-year survival will be higher. I'm on board with this part of your argument. The part that doesn't hold up is patients regularly coming in to their doctors with symptomatic early stage cancer. In early stages, many cancers are completely asymptomatic. Even when we screen completely asymptomatic patients for early stage cancer in the US, we don't actually see clear cut overall mortality benefits. So how is it that these Australians are presenting to their doctors so early on with cancer symptoms? EDIT: The holy grail of cancer screening has three features: - Identifies dangerous cancers shortly after they form - Perfectly separates cancer from non-cancer - Patients live longer Medical science itself (regardless of healthcare system and country) can't reliably meet the above three goals. So I'm skeptical that patients having easy access to medical care like in Australia would result in improved cancer survival.

floatingatoll 6y ago
That is an excellent question, thank you for clarifying.
thret 6y ago
Perhaps Australians present to their doctors early for all symptoms, and it is the doctors who diagnose cancer? I can't speak for everyone in Australia but for me, if I am sick I have to see a doctor in order to get 'sick leave'. I have unlimited paid sick leave provided a doctor has recommended it. It also doesn't cost me anything to see a doctor or get any kind of test or treatment/surgery done - it is all covered by work.
- sxg 6y ago
  Sure, I'm confident that Australians wouldn't hesitate to see their doctors given the low barrier to access. But the real question is how does any doctor in any country diagnose an early stage cancer? This isn't a trivial problem. These patients are often asymptomatic, and objective physical exam findings are not easy to elicit or entirely non-existent. At this point, the only thing a doctor can do is screen every patient coming through the door for cancer via CT, MR, mammography, colonoscopy, etc., but this doesn't translate into clear cut clinically meaningful benefits that helps patients live longer. You often end up irradiating non-cancer patients and creating new cancers, or you selectively diagnose non-aggressive cancers (length-time bias) and unnecessarily put patients through surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (i.e. over-treatment). Some fraction of these patients then go on to live shorter lives as a result of the over-treatment. This particular issue we're discussing is more of a medical science problem than a healthcare system problem. Anecdote from med school: on my surgery rotation, I had a ~70 year-old patient recently diagnosed with early stage colon cancer on a screening colonoscopy. He had undergone chemotherapy and was now about to have the cancerous part of his colon removed. Surgery was a success, and the patient recovered in the hospital for a few days before we sent him home. The day after he goes home, we found out he died from a massive pulmonary embolism, likely a post-operative complication from surgery. Alternatively, had this patient not had a screening colonoscopy, we never would have found his early stage cancer. Based on his cancer stage, he likely would've lived another 10–15 years without treatment (age ~85-90). Instead, our interventions killed him a few months after diagnosis.