5 ms·

>yet we're still stuck with the same treatments, mainly chemo, surgery, and radiation, and generally low survival rates for advanced cancers Survival rates hav

>yet we're still stuck with the same treatments, mainly chemo, surgery, and radiation, and generally low survival rates for advanced cancers Survival rates have been increasing for almost all forms of cancers so fast that it is astounding. Amazing. Stupendous. Heartening. We've gone from an overall 50% five year survival rate to over 70% in just a couple of decades. The pancreatic cancer five-year survival rate is very low, but has tripled since 1999. When I was born you had a 33% chance of living for five more years if you were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Today you have a ~90% chance. I don't know why people think nothing is changing.

m463 3y ago
I think it's like voice recognition, which was overhyped in the 90's, then quietly made its way into phone trees, and cars, and now phones so it quietly works everywhere now. I think it used to miss a lot of stuff in the beginning, and that is conflated with missing words occasionally nowadays even though the field has advanced tremendously. which might be analogous to fighting cancer. I personally know many people who have gotten and then gotten over cancer.
wpasc 3y ago
I agree that much is changing in cancer therapy, most promisingly around immunotherapies and other immune related strategies, but the 5 year survival rate change over decades is often attributed to earlier detection as opposed to improved treatments.
elromulous 3y ago
> I don't know why people think nothing is changing. It's because people expect a cure the likes of a vaccine, with >95% efficacy. But it's not entirely their fault, the media all but says "they've cured cancer!" every other day. When you expect a cure, increasing five year survival rate by 10% falls short.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  Maybe mentioning vaccines efficacy is not very on point with the past few years track record
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I think people expect cancer cures to be as effective as vaccines really are, while also expecting vaccines (and antibiotics) to be as effective as a Potion of Cure Disease in Skyrim.
cnasc 3y ago
How much of this is due to better detection of cancer? If we discover cancers earlier but still don’t have effective treatment I’d expect the 5-year survival rate to go up even though the actual death day never changed.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  which is still fine. its part of the stack. earlier detection and improved treatments is a very important area. we still are absolutely failing in preventing those same cancers from reoccuring because we don't know the sequence of triggers or how to prevent them. like, we might know the trigger, but we don't know why one body really becomes more susceptible to them aside from sometimes behavioral or genetic probabilities. hence why we still focus on remission instead of cured, since the body still remains in a state of susceptibility to the same thing and is exposed to the same unknown things, and doesn't revert back to a baseline of not being so.
  - tiahura 3y ago
    Except we’re spending $50k+ on many of these treatments.
    - FredPret 3y ago
      Are you serious? What better way to spend money than on not dying?
      - ben_w 3y ago
        A simple question with many different details and answers that won't all fit into a single comment. The two easiest, though: Which is a better use of 50k? To give one adult one extra year, or the same money to reduce child mortality for a hundred strangers in a different country? Does the treatment actually reduce mortality, or is it just an expensive placebo?
        golergka 3y ago
ekianjo 3y ago
> had a 33% chance of living for five more years if you were diagnosed with prostate cancer. This is patently false. Only late stage prostate cancers are killers. In most cases you catch them early on.
- golergka 3y ago
  > Only late stage prostate cancers are killers. In most cases you catch them early on. That doesn't contradict the claim you're replying to.
stonemetal12 3y ago
>We've gone from an overall 50% five year survival rate to over 70% in just a couple of decades. Has there been a change in actual life expectancy, or does early detection mean that 5 year survival is equivalent to 5-(average years earlier detection) year survival decades ago?
- Retric 3y ago
  > Has there been a change in actual life expectancy, Yes! There’s been a 25% drop in cancer deaths even ignoring differences in demographics. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-... Back in 1950 it was 193.9 people died of cancer per 100k population, but it was a much younger population. By 1990 216 people died of cancer per 100,000 Americans due to an aging population and possibly lifestyle etc. But it has fallen literally every year since then despite an aging population. We are down to 146.2 cancer deaths per 100,000 people.
caskstrength 3y ago
I guess people want "real" cure (i.e. a vaccine that makes the cancer fully go away), not just to get couple of extra years of life while puking their brains out on chemo most of that time. Observing how an extended family member and an acquaintance succumbed to cancer in recent years I would agree that the way we treat cancers is still quite barbaric and it sucks immensely for patients.
darkclouds 3y ago
[dead]

m463 3y ago

I think it's like voice recognition, which was overhyped in the 90's, then quietly made its way into phone trees, and cars, and now phones so it quietly works everywhere now. I think it used to miss a lot of stuff in the beginning, and that is conflated with missing words occasionally nowadays even though the field has advanced tremendously. which might be analogous to fighting cancer. I personally know many people who have gotten and then gotten over cancer.

wpasc 3y ago

I agree that much is changing in cancer therapy, most promisingly around immunotherapies and other immune related strategies, but the 5 year survival rate change over decades is often attributed to earlier detection as opposed to improved treatments.

elromulous 3y ago

> I don't know why people think nothing is changing. It's because people expect a cure the likes of a vaccine, with >95% efficacy. But it's not entirely their fault, the media all but says "they've cured cancer!" every other day. When you expect a cure, increasing five year survival rate by 10% falls short.

ekianjo 3y ago
Maybe mentioning vaccines efficacy is not very on point with the past few years track record
- ben_w 3y ago
  I think people expect cancer cures to be as effective as vaccines really are, while also expecting vaccines (and antibiotics) to be as effective as a Potion of Cure Disease in Skyrim.

cnasc 3y ago

How much of this is due to better detection of cancer? If we discover cancers earlier but still don’t have effective treatment I’d expect the 5-year survival rate to go up even though the actual death day never changed.

yieldcrv 3y ago
which is still fine. its part of the stack. earlier detection and improved treatments is a very important area. we still are absolutely failing in preventing those same cancers from reoccuring because we don't know the sequence of triggers or how to prevent them. like, we might know the trigger, but we don't know why one body really becomes more susceptible to them aside from sometimes behavioral or genetic probabilities. hence why we still focus on remission instead of cured, since the body still remains in a state of susceptibility to the same thing and is exposed to the same unknown things, and doesn't revert back to a baseline of not being so.
- tiahura 3y ago
  Except we’re spending $50k+ on many of these treatments.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    Are you serious? What better way to spend money than on not dying?
    - ben_w 3y ago
      A simple question with many different details and answers that won't all fit into a single comment. The two easiest, though: Which is a better use of 50k? To give one adult one extra year, or the same money to reduce child mortality for a hundred strangers in a different country? Does the treatment actually reduce mortality, or is it just an expensive placebo?
      - golergka 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago

> had a 33% chance of living for five more years if you were diagnosed with prostate cancer. This is patently false. Only late stage prostate cancers are killers. In most cases you catch them early on.

golergka 3y ago
> Only late stage prostate cancers are killers. In most cases you catch them early on. That doesn't contradict the claim you're replying to.

stonemetal12 3y ago

>We've gone from an overall 50% five year survival rate to over 70% in just a couple of decades. Has there been a change in actual life expectancy, or does early detection mean that 5 year survival is equivalent to 5-(average years earlier detection) year survival decades ago?

Retric 3y ago
> Has there been a change in actual life expectancy, Yes! There’s been a 25% drop in cancer deaths even ignoring differences in demographics. https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-in-the-us-since-1950/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/184566/deaths-by-cancer-... Back in 1950 it was 193.9 people died of cancer per 100k population, but it was a much younger population. By 1990 216 people died of cancer per 100,000 Americans due to an aging population and possibly lifestyle etc. But it has fallen literally every year since then despite an aging population. We are down to 146.2 cancer deaths per 100,000 people.

caskstrength 3y ago

I guess people want "real" cure (i.e. a vaccine that makes the cancer fully go away), not just to get couple of extra years of life while puking their brains out on chemo most of that time. Observing how an extended family member and an acquaintance succumbed to cancer in recent years I would agree that the way we treat cancers is still quite barbaric and it sucks immensely for patients.

darkclouds 3y ago

[dead]