4 ms·

I had a quick look but didn't find a reference to how much each country tests, what exactly they test for, and what constitutes a definition of "cancer" per-cou

by wzdd 2y ago

I had a quick look but didn't find a reference to how much each country tests, what exactly they test for, and what constitutes a definition of "cancer" per-country (for example, do countries both classify and report non-malignant neoplasms the same way). Without this info I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions, except between countries with (presumably) fairly similar reporting and testing regimes thanks to a long shared history, such as the UK and Australia.

littlestymaar 2y ago
> fairly similar reporting and testing regimes thanks to a long shared history, such as the UK and Australia. Why would this result in such a difference with Canada then?
- roenxi 2y ago
  The US is such an outrageous outlier that it does seem suspicious. Stereotyping the US health system, my first bet would be that doctors in the US can charge patients slightly more if they identify a cancer.
  - ChocolateGod 2y ago
    It could also be due to the EU's stricter pollution, chemical and food regulations compared to the US, the Brussels effect tends to make them apply globally to smaller markets.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      I honestly think it could be as simple as being proportional with obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and sugar consumption that exist in the US and Canada. The US and Canada really stand out specifically in their suburban infrastructure, which may strongly correlate with cancers in very obscure ways, such as simply needing more preservatives, such as sugars in bread, simply because people buy more in bulk because the culture of supermarkets. I'll be honest, I think the chart needs a full explanation, but when I think of the US and Canada, and what makes them really unique, it's the complete lack of walking anywhere except the few urban centers.
      - reducesuffering 2y ago
        In 1990, US was 18.7% obese with a cancer incidence of 1,760, UK and Australia at 780. Most recent is 2016 showing Australia and UK at 30% obesity, yet their cancer incidence is lower than ever at 750 and 682, respectively. Everyone but the US (and Poland) are increasing their obesity while their cancer incidence is flat or decreasing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a...
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    I would really like to see a regional breakdown within the US. At least by state. If possible also by urban/rural populations. There are areas which are notorious for greater cancer risk, e.g., "cancer alley" through the Mississippi delta region. And there are regions with far greater access to healthcare, notably the north-east and northern plains states (especially Minnesota), and western states (CA, OR, WA). Many of the more rural states (WY, ID, NM, ND, SD) would have correspondingly less access to healthcare. The mix of potential causes (e.g., polluted regions, lifestyle) and available Dx / Rx / Tx) would be useful in distinguishing the cause of reported incidence.
    - littlestymaar 2y ago
      I suspect you can't really get much from that kind of geographic breakdown in practice at least when it comes to pollution or lifestyle, because people move, especially nowadays people move quite a lot from where they are born and exposure to harmful stuff during pregnancy and youth are suspected to be much stronger factors than comparable exposure during adulthood.
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        Even if people move: - Those who are exposed to a specific area for a prolonged period of time will leave a strong signal. - Particularly those exposed during pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood, which you note. Even if significant numbers subsequently move you should see a trace amongst those who do not, and the movement will be somewhat arbitrary. - Those who do move often and readily often move among specific types of areas, mostly large and coastal cities. - Those who do not move often tend to be concentrated among regions of lower wealth. Where they do move, it's typically among such regions, or often within poorer regions (e.g., from a smaller town to a nearer larger city). Even then, overall numbers are still ... comparatively small. Looking at California, 6.1 million people left the state from 2010 to 2020, of a total population of just under 40 million, or 15%. Which leaves us with 85% of state residents who did not move out of the state. (They may of course have moved within the state.) <https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/people-leaving-california-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/people-leav...> So I'm still pretty sure that state and major city stats would be illuminating.

by wzdd 2y ago

littlestymaar 2y ago

> fairly similar reporting and testing regimes thanks to a long shared history, such as the UK and Australia. Why would this result in such a difference with Canada then?

roenxi 2y ago
The US is such an outrageous outlier that it does seem suspicious. Stereotyping the US health system, my first bet would be that doctors in the US can charge patients slightly more if they identify a cancer.
- ChocolateGod 2y ago
  It could also be due to the EU's stricter pollution, chemical and food regulations compared to the US, the Brussels effect tends to make them apply globally to smaller markets.
  - scoofy 2y ago
    I honestly think it could be as simple as being proportional with obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and sugar consumption that exist in the US and Canada. The US and Canada really stand out specifically in their suburban infrastructure, which may strongly correlate with cancers in very obscure ways, such as simply needing more preservatives, such as sugars in bread, simply because people buy more in bulk because the culture of supermarkets. I'll be honest, I think the chart needs a full explanation, but when I think of the US and Canada, and what makes them really unique, it's the complete lack of walking anywhere except the few urban centers.
    - reducesuffering 2y ago
      In 1990, US was 18.7% obese with a cancer incidence of 1,760, UK and Australia at 780. Most recent is 2016 showing Australia and UK at 30% obesity, yet their cancer incidence is lower than ever at 750 and 682, respectively. Everyone but the US (and Poland) are increasing their obesity while their cancer incidence is flat or decreasing: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-adults-defined-a...
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  I would really like to see a regional breakdown within the US. At least by state. If possible also by urban/rural populations. There are areas which are notorious for greater cancer risk, e.g., "cancer alley" through the Mississippi delta region. And there are regions with far greater access to healthcare, notably the north-east and northern plains states (especially Minnesota), and western states (CA, OR, WA). Many of the more rural states (WY, ID, NM, ND, SD) would have correspondingly less access to healthcare. The mix of potential causes (e.g., polluted regions, lifestyle) and available Dx / Rx / Tx) would be useful in distinguishing the cause of reported incidence.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    I suspect you can't really get much from that kind of geographic breakdown in practice at least when it comes to pollution or lifestyle, because people move, especially nowadays people move quite a lot from where they are born and exposure to harmful stuff during pregnancy and youth are suspected to be much stronger factors than comparable exposure during adulthood.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Even if people move: - Those who are exposed to a specific area for a prolonged period of time will leave a strong signal. - Particularly those exposed during pregnancy, infancy, and early childhood, which you note. Even if significant numbers subsequently move you should see a trace amongst those who do not, and the movement will be somewhat arbitrary. - Those who do move often and readily often move among specific types of areas, mostly large and coastal cities. - Those who do not move often tend to be concentrated among regions of lower wealth. Where they do move, it's typically among such regions, or often within poorer regions (e.g., from a smaller town to a nearer larger city). Even then, overall numbers are still ... comparatively small. Looking at California, 6.1 million people left the state from 2010 to 2020, of a total population of just under 40 million, or 15%. Which leaves us with 85% of state residents who did not move out of the state. (They may of course have moved within the state.) <https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/people-leaving-california-by-state https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/people-leav...> So I'm still pretty sure that state and major city stats would be illuminating.