Could you provide the following clarifications for me, please? I am
of average intelligence but have problems making the statistics on
offer at IARC and other places, tell a story.
I was surprised to read recently that "the incidence of cancer has
escalated since the 1971 National Cancer Act. Cancer now strikes about
1.3 million people and kills about 550,000 annually; nearly one in two
men and more than one in three women now develop cancer in their
lifetime. In 1950, 1 in 12 people was diagnosed with cancer before
death. In 1980, it was 1 in 7. In 2003, it was 1 in 3. A fourfold
climb in just half a decade. In 2004, over 1,500,000 Americans will
get cancer."
Are these statements true? What backs them up?
If it is true, to what extent does earlier and more thorough detection
of cancer due to modern screening and diagnostic technbiques inflate
these figures - that is, the incidence is higher because cancer can be
diagnosed earlier, and because more suspicious lesions or lumps etc
can now be detected and are being reported into the statistics?
How much better are my chances of being cured of cancer today than
they were 30 years ago? Please take into account that survival times
may be longer in modern statistics because of the early diagnosis
factor mentioned above, that is, people are living longer after
diagnosis.
I also read that "Dr Ulrich Abel reviewed several thousand
chemotherapy trials. He concluded that in cancer of the major organs,
chemotherapy did not extend life." Is this true?
The American Cancer Society (ACS) espouses that early diagnosis and
treatment increases the chance of survival. As far as cancer is
concerned, Dr Hardin Jones further says in A Report on Cancer that the
value of these checkups is questionable. He says, ?In the matter of
duration of malignant tumors before treatment, no studies have
established the much talked about relationship between early detection
and favorable survival after treatment.... In some types of cancer,
the opposite of the expected association of short duration of symptoms
with a high chance of being ?cured? has been observed. A long duration
of symptoms before treatment in a few cancers of the breast and cervix
is associated with longer than usual survival.... Neither the timing
nor the extent of treatment of the true malignancies has appreciably
altered the average course of the disease. The possibility exists that
treatment makes the average situation worse.? Is this true?
Just to recap on that earlier point, The ACS states that conventional
therapy lets people live longer. But it is obvious to me that people
may not beliving longer after they get cancer; they may be living
longer after the diagnosis. Modern diagnostic techniques make it
possible to identify cancer and more of it, earlier than before. So,
while there is a longer interval between diagnosis and death to try
out various conventional treatments, actual life may not have really
got longer. What are your thoughts backed up by statistics or opinions
of people in the know with no vested interest?
Thank you. |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
23 Apr 2004 04:49 PDT
Hello karon-ga,
Your question raises some fascinating issues. Quite a number of them,
actually, and therein lies a problem. You've cast such a broad net,
that many researchers are probably having the same reaction to your
question that I am --I don't even know where to begin.
There are tons of statistics available about cancer -- incidence,
mortality, survivability, etc -- and a lot of examination of the whys
and wherefors of different trends. You're certainly not the first to
wonder about the impacts of improved and earlier detections, for
instance.
It does seem true that more people get cancer than ever before. The
bottom line is that folks have to die of something. As medicine has
gotten better and better at improving the odds of surviving many of
the things that killed us in the past -- heart attacks, accidents,
infectious diseases -- cancer has emerged as the one big hold out.
Live long enough, and the odds increase enormously that sooner or
later you might get cancer.
Anyway...if you could perhaps fine tune your question a bit by laying
out clearly the one or two or three things you really want to know the
most, it may well be that I -- or one of the other researchers here --
can answer it for you.
Thanks,
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
karon-ga
on
23 Apr 2004 13:30 PDT
Hi Pafalafa-ga
Thank you for your response.
Regarding your supposition that the apparent rise in cancer is due to
"Live long enough, and the odds increase enormously that sooner or
later you might get cancer", I have the impression that cancer is
rising across all age bands.
The thrust of my questioning is that I want 'proof' of many of the
suppositions and assumptions regarding this topic. It is such an
important topic that when you think about it, the answers to these
questions should be the highest priority for our society to
understand, if not already emblazoned in the sky.
I want a smart and objective, lateral-thinking researcher who can
discard his/her assumptions about this topic and look at it with fresh
eyes, 'look under the hood','join up the dots' etc to tell me:
How big is it?
How fast is it growing?
Who is it affecting?
Are my chances better now than 30 years ago, of avoiding it, and if I
get it, then of having it cured?
How well are our current treatments, chemo, radiation and surgery etc
supporting this picture?
I guess a lot of statistics can be thrown at the above but I am
seeking value-adding clarity and originality - in the interpretation
of the available information, and in the expression of the response.
A challenge (and a healthy tip) for the right researcher!:) Hope the above helps.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
23 Apr 2004 14:51 PDT
karon-ga,
Thanks for getting back to me, and I very much hope that someone can
give you the answer you're looking for (I'd love to read it, for
one!).
While I feel I am capable of tackling this topic, it also seems to me
that it would be the equivalent of writing a PhD thesis....or close to
it. I'm afraid I simply can't devote that level of time and
attention. But perhaps another researcher will find a less
resource-intensive approach than I have (or is less lazy than me).
Best of luck.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
karon-ga
on
26 Apr 2004 05:22 PDT
You may well be right, pafalafa-ga. I persist in seeing it as a very
critical public health issue and expect the answers to be obvious and
forthcoming. Are you suggesting that all the billions spent on the
War on Cancer since 1970, have not yet provided the public these
answers :)
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
26 Apr 2004 06:25 PDT
Hello again. I'm enjoying our dialogue here, and who knows, perhaps
we'll be able to work our way through to an answer for your question.
I'm not suggesting there aren't answers to some, if not all, of the
questions you asked. They are indeed important questions, and the
public deserves answers to them. I suspect you can find the relevant
information in any one of several periodic reports to the public made
available by the U.S. government and private organizations, such as
this one:
http://seer.cancer.gov/report_to_nation/1975_2000/
If you would like a researcher to go through several of these reports
and extract the information that is relevant to your questions, then
perhaps I can do that for you.
I read your questions -- perhaps incorrectly -- as being skeptical of
the "offical" answers, and wanting someone to conduct an independent,
original, "value added", review, which I felt would be an undertaking
on par with doing a university thesis.
If I've misunderstood, please clarify, and I'll begin looking into
reports like the one above to see if the answers reside therein.
Thanks.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
karon-ga
on
27 Apr 2004 03:14 PDT
Hi pafalafa-ga
I would like another researcher to have a go at this question please. Thanks.
karon-ga
|
