This is Good News??
“OVER A HALF-MILLION DEAD - HOORAY FOR PROGRESS!”
“The war on cancer may have reach a dramatic turning point: For the first time in more than 70 years, annual cancer deaths in the United States have fallen.”
“The number of cancer deaths dropped to 556,902 in 2003, down from 557,271 the year before,” a new statistical review of U. S. death certificates reveals. Let loose the cannons! Release the white doves! Bring out the Rolling Stones to play for the crowd! We’re on our way to a cure for the world’s most disgusting disease - or are we?
It does appear remarkable that this decline is the first ever recorded since cancer deaths were tabulated in 1930. There’s nothing like cancer to rack up a string of 75 straight years of growth, but what does this drop really mean? How significant is it that 369 fewer people died of cancer in the year 2003?
369 divided by 557,271 equals a 0.06621 % drop in the death rate, which coincidentally matched the annual percent decline in my I. Q. until I became the father of a teenager, at which time my brain cells began to curdle faster than one can download a hundred bucks worth of speed metal songs from I-Tunes. But I digress - what I mean to say is that this microscopic decline certainly appears less than awe-inspiring when converted into a percentage. Is this the source of our applause?
This report identifies a drop not in the cancer death rate, which is defined as “the calculated number of deaths per 100,000 people.” This rate for your information has been going down 1% per year recently, to the delight of all. Rather, these new statistics refer to the overall number of cancer deaths in each year. Why is this distinction important? As the story relates, since we started counting bodies in 1930 “the actual number of cancer deaths still rose each year because the growth in total population outpaced the falling death rates.” In other words, up until 2003 more people died of cancer each year because, for one reason, there were more people alive in each succeeding year to die from cancer. Now, as stated by an epidemiologist in the story, “Finally, the declining rates have surpassed the increasing size of the population.” This could represent real progress as more and more Americans eschew smoking, keep their weight down, exercise and agree to regular early screening tests.
What about more effective treatments - don’t they play a role in the drop in cancer deaths? Those of us who read the oncology literature know that new treatments are proving to be helpful in raising the survival rate in some malignancies, but not all. Compared with preventing cancer these modern day treatments play a very small role in reducing deaths, in my opinion.
369 more lives saved in one year. Even Churchill might have difficulty announcing that this development represents “the end of the beginning.” If we really want to impress our fellow countries with progress against cancer, think of the publicity we would generate if every smoker decided today to quit, or if the number of teenagers per day who light up their first cigarette ever dropped in half (the number in case you’re wondering is 8000 per day). 50,000 lives saved here, 100,000 lives saved there and pretty soon people will begin to believe what the generals in the war on cancer are saying about progress.
Until then, reports such as these should serve mainly to remind us of the need to take better care of ourselves, to stop lying to ourselves that enjoying a post-double-cheeseburger cigarette while driving our electric cart from the restaurant to our parked car is probably not going to lead to anyone starting the eulogy at our funeral with the phrase, “What a long life he lived.”
The news articles I saw weren’t quite clear on what the numbers meant, so this is a helpful clarification. Thanks.
Interesting that you don’t think the numbers reflect increased effectiveness of cancer treatments, but rather better prevention. On the one hand, that’s great, for it’s better to prevent than treat. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem very hopeful for treatment successes, does it?
Comment by Bardiac — February 11, 2006 @ 12:11 am
And even if it meant better treatment…..that is not a significant improvement in numbers. Just ask any cancer patient.
Comment by Feisty — February 12, 2006 @ 7:36 pm
It’ll be nice if they broke it down by age e.g. # of people in their 50s, 60s, etc, or at least listed this number alongside the number of people who die every year from all causes. Or if they said that ‘number of years lost to cancer decreased by…’
Otherwise, how do we know that for every one whose life is prolonged, somebody else isn’t dying from something else - like heart deasese from all the extra stress…
Comment by kitty — February 12, 2006 @ 10:52 pm
Thank you for this- I had the same reaction and was told to quit poopooing on good news. It is good news, but not the kind that people should use to pacify themselves into thinking we can back off the offensive against cancer.
Comment by Chris — February 14, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
I shouldn’t admit this, because I would be killing the goose that lays my golden eggs, but I have a similar dim view on “medical progress” in general.
You probably know this, C.O., but in 1900 life expectancy in the U.S. was around 45. Shortly after 1900 there was a rise in life expectancy, until just after WWII (imagine that WWII did not significantly affect the death rate here!) when it reached about 65. Today it stands at 75. Antibiotics were not available to the general population until after WWII. That means the first 20 year gain had nothing to do with the effects of modern medicine. Most people agree the improvement came from disinfection of the water supply.
It was only after life expectancy passed 65 that the effects of immunization, modern anesthesia, bypass surgery, insulin injections, and chemotherapy really kicked in.
I find it very sobering to think that everything we associate with modern medicine has had half the impact on longevity that the simple act of adding chlorine to munincipal water supplies has.
Comment by mchebert — March 11, 2006 @ 4:00 pm