2 ms·

Cancer survival rates are indeed quite good in the US compared to some other countries. However, that is not reflected in low cancer mortality rates. Cancer su

Cancer survival rates are indeed quite good in the US compared to some other countries. However, that is not reflected in low cancer mortality rates. Cancer survival rates generally measure how many people are alive five years after diagnosis; because in America, cancer diagnosis is performed early and often, cancer is often diagnosed early, and more patients will be alive five years after an early diagnosis than five years after a late diagnosis. However, this does not necessarily lead to a measurably lower cancer mortality rate (the number of people who actually die from cancer) [1]. Furthermore, aggressive diagnostic procedures can also lead to false positives, unnecessary treatment, and overtreatment. Prostate cancer is a prominent example here: it is rarely fatal; it's a cancer that one generally dies with, not from. Conversely, surgery at the typical age where prostate cancer occurs carries significant risk and has, even when successful, negative effects on quality of life, such as incontinence and bowel problems. The free rider problem with pharmaceuticals is largely a myth. Pharmaceutical companies typically invest only a relatively small percentage of their revenue (for Pfizer or Merck, about 15%, give or take) in R&D. I.e., out of every $10 that you spend on their prescription drugs, only $1.5 will go to research. Furthermore, most of the basic research (north of 80%) to discover new drugs and vaccines is actually funded by the NIH; Pfizer, Merck, etc. are more interested in variations of existing drugs than in innovating treatment [2]. [1] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/beware-cancer-screens.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/05/beware-cancer-screens.... [2] http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348 http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e4348

snowwrestler 14y ago
People diagnosed with cancer are obviously more likely to die of cancer, since cancer is never cured, and everyone must die of something. What matters is how long they live with their cancer. That is why survival rates are a better measure of cancer treatment efficacy than mortality rates.
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Cancer is never cured? An early find of some cancers will have you living longer, due to increased awareness and vigilance. And why is survival a better measure than mortality? 2 sides of the same coin?
- rbehrends 14y ago
  The problem with that is that cancer survival rates are measured from the time of diagnosis, not from the time the cancer presumably began (because that's often difficult to tell). And even with identical treatment efficacy, cancer that is diagnosed early will have a higher five-year survival rate than one that is diagnosed later. In short, we're lacking good data at the national level to measure what you'd like to measure; and we do have studies (e.g., the one in the first link I gave you) that at the very least cast doubt on the belief that an aggressive cancer screening schedule reduces cancer-related or all-cause mortality. As Robin Hanson puts it: "While cancer screening does consistently lead to more cancer detection and more cancer treatment, it consistently doesn’t lead to lower mortality."
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    There won't be identical treatment efficacy, because cancer treatments work better the earlier they are started. Early diagnosis is not a data problem, it is an inherent part of why the U.S. gets good results fighting cancer.

snowwrestler 14y ago

People diagnosed with cancer are obviously more likely to die of cancer, since cancer is never cured, and everyone must die of something. What matters is how long they live with their cancer. That is why survival rates are a better measure of cancer treatment efficacy than mortality rates.

lostlogin 14y ago
Cancer is never cured? An early find of some cancers will have you living longer, due to increased awareness and vigilance. And why is survival a better measure than mortality? 2 sides of the same coin?
rbehrends 14y ago
The problem with that is that cancer survival rates are measured from the time of diagnosis, not from the time the cancer presumably began (because that's often difficult to tell). And even with identical treatment efficacy, cancer that is diagnosed early will have a higher five-year survival rate than one that is diagnosed later. In short, we're lacking good data at the national level to measure what you'd like to measure; and we do have studies (e.g., the one in the first link I gave you) that at the very least cast doubt on the belief that an aggressive cancer screening schedule reduces cancer-related or all-cause mortality. As Robin Hanson puts it: "While cancer screening does consistently lead to more cancer detection and more cancer treatment, it consistently doesn’t lead to lower mortality."
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  There won't be identical treatment efficacy, because cancer treatments work better the earlier they are started. Early diagnosis is not a data problem, it is an inherent part of why the U.S. gets good results fighting cancer.