[HN Gopher] Death rates are declining for many common cancers in... ___________________________________________________________________ Death rates are declining for many common cancers in the U.S., report finds Author : mpweiher Score : 145 points Date : 2021-07-08 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.statnews.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.statnews.com) | GhostVII wrote: | If you are interested in more of the history behind the different | cancer treatments that we have today, "The Emperor of All | Maladies: A Biography of Cancer" is a fantastic book about it. | Probably my favourite book of all time, a lot of parallels with | the themes in this article about prevention being a huge | contributor, and how recently we've had some success in very | targeted cancer drugs. | devmor wrote: | I just wish it were the same for pets. We've lost two cats to | cancer in the past two years. There's so much they can do to | extend quality of life, but not much in the way of actually | extending their lives. | xarope wrote: | I have a pet-theory (see what I did there...) about pets; they | remind us to appreciate and keep dear to us, not just pets, but | the people around us. | gnulinux wrote: | This is very heart breaking. I love my cat just like a child, | he's my everything, and I spend an important part of my day, | playing with him, taking care of him etc. Seeing him dead would | absolutely devastate me: but being a 20 something, it's very | likely this will happen sometime in my lifetime (my cat is 2 | years old)! | askonomm wrote: | Cats can live a pretty long time however. My grandmas two | cats (sisters) lived from when I was 7 years old, to when I | was 27 years old, and both died just months apart from each | other. That's pretty good I think. | nerdponx wrote: | Sometimes with humans we spend too much effort extending life | without considering quality of life. | gopalv wrote: | There was a giant uptick in personalized treatment for cancer[1] | that coincided with the end of the Obama era (Biden driving it | after his son's death, in 2015). | | I saw bits of it in my space with large scale analysis of genomic | testing - particularly things like analyzing old drugs with new | genomic data (drugs which failed in the past, retesting for the | combo of the cancer:personal-genome SNPs). | | My friend went through a Car-T recently for a lymphoma and | something like that is near SciFi-tech in discussion when Steve | Jobs had cancer, but available through the FDA today. | | [1] - https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/moonshot- | can... | gregwebs wrote: | Does anything in this study confirm that personalized treatment | or any cancer treatment is moving the needle? The minor | decrease in overall cancer rate seems to be driven by fewer | diagnoses rather than increased survival, at least for lung | cancer, which is the single biggest change. Skin cancer death | rate is lower and that does coincide with the one major | technological advancement against cancer that has happened in | decades: immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immune checkpoint | inhibitors are not very personalized. In general personalized | corresponds to a focus on cancer genetics and has had an | extremely disappointing outcome (helps a few percent of people | a lot or helps more just a little) compared to what was hoped | for. | deregulateMed wrote: | I don't hate the idea about personalized treatments, however | this will be the excuse by physicians why they can't be | replaced by AI and we need to continue the myth of medicine | being Art and Science. | f6v wrote: | CAR-T therapy is absolutely how we imagined the "genetic age" | would be. However, its applications to liver cancer (as well as | other solid tumors) are far away from clinics. | | Some cancers haven't seen much progress in the last 30 years. | For example, uveal melanoma is a death sentence, same as 30 | years ago. Liver metastases don't give you any chance. | war1025 wrote: | Similarly, glioblastoma (a brain cancer) is still a death | sentence. My dad died of it a little over 5 years ago, | lasting about a year and a half from initial diagnosis. | | Maybe a year later, John McCain came down with the same | thing. In a weird way it was comforting to know that all the | money and power in the world didn't make any difference in | the outcome. | opportune wrote: | A close family member has stage 4 cancer. | | Even if the absolute death rates for some cancers are relatively | unchanged, one of the amazing things I've observed is that | medical advances have increased the long term survival rates of | terminal/metastaticized cancers. It's partially due to the | development of various drugs that have been identified as | effective against various specific mutations. Even if the cancer | is incurable with existing technology, they can extend lives by | years, which is nothing to sneeze at. Especially considering many | people get diagnosed with cancer once they are elderly already, | it can mean the difference between dying directly of cancer and | living long enough to die of something else - ie the cancer | becomes something more like a chronic condition than it does a | direct threat (for a period of time). | paulpauper wrote: | for a 40 year old diagnosed with stage 4 cancer ,a few extra | years ain't much | xarope wrote: | if you measure in terms of percentage, sure. But not | everything is statistical... considering that this 40 year | old has not planned to be not-around so soon, these few extra | years might allow this 40 year old to sort out and settle | certain affairs that would allow them and their family to | part with more "acceptance". | gambiting wrote: | Are you kidding me????? | | My dad was diagnosed with a very rare type of stomach cancer | called GIST at 42. The average survivability at that stage | for GIST at that time was 6-12 months. Zero patients lived | more than 5 years. | | He was given experimental(at the time) drug called Glivec as | it was being tested specifically against GIST and it was | literally one of these "there's nothing else, so might as | well". | | He lived another 8 years after that, until cancer came back | and the drugs stopped working. | | When he was first diagnosed I was a teenager, my sister was a | child - thanks to this drug he was able to see his kids go | into adulthood, and obviously spend 8 more years with his | wife. | | How is that "ain't much"?????? | paulpauper wrote: | Consider that a 40 year old today can live 40+ more years. | so even 4 extra years with experimental treatments is small | relative to potential life expectancy without cancer. 4 | years is still optimistic given that stage 4 survival for | major cancers instill in the 3-20% range depending on the | cancer. | | Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at -4, | which is the cap. | riboflavin123 wrote: | You can't fold every individual into some sort of | "average" case when the individualism isn't favorable. | The universe doesn't work that way. | angrais wrote: | Yes, but cancer is not a solved problem, and so people | will get it and eventually die. Also, who cares if people | live 40+ years? Those with cancer statistically don't, | yet drugs can increase life expectancy. That's the point. | | An extra day with your loved ones is paradise. Taking a | drug and potentially gaining years? | | Come on mate, it's not a surprise you're being downvoted | as your attitude is a disgrace. | ncallaway wrote: | > Speaking of the number 4, awesome my comment already at | -4, which is the cap. | | I cannot _believe_ how flippantly you 're responding to | someone who told the story of their dad passing away due | to cancer, and yet you have the gall to also whine about | downvotes. | adventured wrote: | > How is that "ain't much"? | | Whether four or eight years, either is an enormous gift | when facing a terminal illness. There is no question about | it. It's even more so the case if a person is 40 years old | than if they're 80. The 80 year old has already lived a | full life, death is far more acceptable, tolerable, at that | age for most people. | | I suspect a person would have had to have never seen a | loved one confront a terminal illness, to believe a year of | additional time isn't a lot given the context. | | My mother died relatively young from small cell lung | cancer. At the time there were no specific therapies for | it, it was often caught late, and typically a person would | die within 6-12 months. Almost nobody would make it more | than three years. She lived for around 20 months post | diagnosis, and that was a lot of very valuable time, even | if it wasn't enough time. | | I've observed across my lifetime that some people live more | in a year than other people manage to in a decade. | | How quickly time passes objectively and how we experience | time are obviously two different things. Perhaps the | skeptical parent was failing to grasp the significance of | the difference. When facing a terminal illness, how you | experience time is drastically altered, even if the seconds | tick by as they did before. | scottshamus wrote: | I appreciate you taking the time to tell your story. It's | easy to view expensive treatments that only extend | someone's life by a year or two as too costly but those | remaining years can be the most important for that person | and their friends/family. | throwaway894345 wrote: | One of the interesting developments is precision medicine: we | can now use genomic sequencing and AI to "search" for the | treatment that is most likely to be effective against a | particular individual's cancer rather than following the rough | "standard of care" playbook (for example, depending on the type | of cancer, the standard of care might be 6 months of chemo, and | if that doesn't work try something else, repeat until cancer | goes away or patient dies). The precision medicine approach at | this point seems to be among the things that we try if the | standard of care doesn't work, but hopefully one day it will be | step one (chemo sucks and it is an expensive use of precious | time). In addition to searching for treatments, we can also | search for clinical trials for which a patient is a good fit-- | this helps both the research side (it's very hard to find | qualified patients) and possibly patients who don't have better | options (and of course the research itself benefits future | cancer patients). | hanniabu wrote: | This sounds like something insurance will either refuse to | cover for being expensive or make you try 5 other approaches | first before agreeing to cover it, at which point it'll | probably be too late. | xwdv wrote: | This is partly why it's important to save for retirement so | you can be well capitalized to fund such treatments on your | own if they should become necessary. | sjg007 wrote: | Unlikely. It will rule out treatments that are unlikely to | work, saving money. What we are seeing is Simpson's | paradox. Genomics and precision medicine allow you to | segment populations at a higher resolution then before. | riboflavin123 wrote: | It may rule them out. But many standard-of-care chemo | drugs are quite cheap. | | When I had leukemia, my first rounds of chemo used cheap | drugs. (The drugs were far cheaper than the daily | hospitalization costs, which was required due to drugs | obliterating the immune system.) The insurance company | didn't require any oversight into the process. | | But once the chemo stopped working and a much more | expensive treatment was needed, the insurance company | became quite a pest. I'm fortunate have saved a lot of | money, so I didn't delay treatment until insurance | approved it. (The 2-3 weeks between treatment starting | and the final approval from insurance may have actually | made a difference between life-and-death when dealing | with aggressive leukemia.) | sjg007 wrote: | I'm glad you're here and a survivor of that hell. Yes, | what you are describing is a very real problem. It's | something we need congressional action on. Call it a | surprise medical bill but more rather a surprise | insurance denial. I am no stranger to insurance | battles... | | I actually should have put it differently. Precision | medicine will bring new treatments to the standard of | care because we will be able to find the correct drug for | you or me. | pilotneko wrote: | Small consolation, but I believe GINA should prevent that | behavior. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for- | professionals/special-topics/g... | throwaway894345 wrote: | To the extent this is true today, I suspect it's precisely | because the precision medicine approach is not yet the | standard. I.e., insurance companies want you to do the | standard of care, but if/when precision medicine _becomes_ | the standard then insurance companies will embrace it (or | that's my hypothesis, anyway). | gregwebs wrote: | > repeat until cancer goes away or patient dies | | This sounds very similar to participating in a clinical trial | and to me ironically seems to be the opposite of precision | medicine. | | The Nagourney Cancer Institute cultures live cancer cells | from the patient to test for what drugs may work. Doesn't | work for everyone, but seems more in line with precision. | Whereas genomic sequencing hasn't produced the amazing | results that were expected. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > This sounds very similar to participating in a clinical | trial and to me ironically seems to be the opposite of | precision medicine. | | yes, to be clear this is a description of "standard of | care" in which oncologists follow a playbook based on the | type of cancer. Precision medicine (as I, a lay person, | understand it) involves picking a treatment that is very | likely to work based on an individual's genes, the genes of | their tumor, their past medical history, and other relevant | factors. The idea is to use all available information to | identify the treatment that is the most likely to succeed | for that individual. | chiefofstuffs wrote: | I'm in a similar situation. Partially have self-serving hope, | but agreed that the game is starting to shift. The goal is now | to buy enough time with the current drug you can move to the | next version. So if you get 3 years from the drug and new ones | come out every 2, you might get to die of something else. | | Also aggregated death rates will always lag if treatments are | improving. | t3po7re5 wrote: | Yep, its all about staying ahead of the curve | sharadov wrote: | I agree, my dad was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer in 2020. | One of the drugs that he was given as part of the anti-cancer | regimen "Avastin" - starves the tumor of blood supply, | effectively limiting growth, this differs from conventional chemo | which attacks both healthy and cancer cells. After 22 cycles, he | went into remission earlier this year. | hanniabu wrote: | Are there no downsides to Avastin? How long is a cycle? | denimnerd42 wrote: | still harsh side effects. just not as brutal as chemo. the | cycle depends. my mother is on it indefinitely. | pcorsaro wrote: | Your wounds won't heal. It also costs a fortune. I don't | think it clinically makes a difference in survival rates | either. My wife had stage 4 colon cancer and they used it in | conjunction with her standard chemo treatments for a couple | of sessions. The incision where her port was installed never | fully healed so they took her off of it. | | Edit: when they took her off the avastin, her oncologist just | said it was no big deal. They use it because it doesn't hurt | anything. | tyingq wrote: | Avastin blocks vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). | | There are also drugs that block epidermal growth factor (EGF), | like Cuba's CIMAvax for lung cancer. | sunshineforever wrote: | In addition to medical developments, I think that clean living | has become more popular than ever. In 2021, you see people who | would never have been interested in a healthy diet eating | properly. And obesity is an significant risk factor for cancer. | copperx wrote: | What does clean living mean? Living in small towns away from | pollution? Washing produce more thoroughly? | chrisseaton wrote: | They mean thinking about your diet, exercise, mental welling | and other health issues. It doesn't literally mean 'clean' as | in 'not dirty'. | gorwell wrote: | I hope you're right, but over the past year we went kept | packing on weight. | | A majority of adults (61%) reported experiencing undesired | weight changes since the start of the pandemic, with more than | 2 in 5 (42%) saying they gained more weight than they intended. | Of this group, adults reported gaining an average of 29 pounds | (with a typical gain of 15 pounds, which is the median). | | https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2021/one-year... | nemo44x wrote: | Depends where you live - you may have selection bias. When I go | back home away from the wealthy bubble I see a whole lot of | "dirty" living around and not a whole lot of wanting to change. | nradov wrote: | The obesity rate has continued to increase. | deregulateMed wrote: | Consider the other additives like food coloring or | preservatives. | | But yes diabetes isn't going down. | SubiculumCode wrote: | Tell that to my friend who died last month at 43. Sorry. It's | hard not to be bitter right now. Fuck Cancer. | some_hacker3 wrote: | We can't, he's dead. | andy_ppp wrote: | I do wonder if there will be trials of doing short chemotherapy | or senescent cell clearing drugs in your 40s in the future. It | might be better to kill these things before they even become | noticeable as diseases... | mdeck_ wrote: | Ok, but hardly shocking, given the zillions of dollars and | person-hours spent on cancer research and related public health | initiatives... | | Perhaps the most interesting tidbits here are regarding the | _increases_ in mortality from particular cancers, which seem in | most cases to be related to increasing numbers of diagnoses of | the relevant cancer types. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-08 23:00 UTC)