Cancer Mortality Rates
A number of crystallographers have been studying macromolecules related to various aspects of cancer. How much has research in general reduced the mortality in the USA (unable to find world wide data) over the last 60 years?
How was this graph made?
The above graph is from slide 6 of this powerpoint presentation by the Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (reference: www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa03_charts.ppt)
2000: 199.6
2001: 196.0
2002: 193.5
2003: 190.1
2004: 185.8
2005: 183.8
For the 2000-05 data, the closest link can be found here, after which select cancer in the top toggle.
The stability of the cancer mortality rate in the USA over about the last 60 years is fascinating. Before seeing this data, I would have assumed that with all the money spent on cancer research that we would have significantly reduced the mortality rate.
Implication, if you have cancer today, you have about the same chance of living as in 1950.
I had never seen this information by any news agency and thought it would be worth discussing, thoughts?
As a side note, thanks Norm for digging through the CDC website to find this information.
Sistla
March 31st, 2009 at 11:59 PM #
Hi! very interesting post! However, I would like to be optimistic. Understanding of the cancer biology has exponentially grown only in the last two decades. It would take a decade or so to translate into medicine and show effect on improving the survival chances of cancer patients. I really hope this curve doesn’t look the same in the next fifty years, for example! And I don’t want to be proven wrong!!
Sean
April 1st, 2009 at 4:58 PM #
The CDC is predicting a target rate of 158 in 2010 so it will be interesting to see if the rate can be lowered to that level.
aware
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:56 AM #
The plot does not show the *age* of death. Perhaps, cancer treatment is indeed efficient and nowadays people survive more years, even though they (we) eventually die of cancer at a later age.
Sean
April 5th, 2009 at 9:50 PM #
Great point! I will take a look through the data and see if there are any trends (or lack of) in regard to age.
Peter French
June 16th, 2009 at 6:12 PM #
This is very interesting. I went to the CDC powerpoint and make the following observations.
The decline in female mortality can probably be ascribed primarily to Pap tests and possibly breast screening for breast cancer (although this data is not presented). In other words the major impact on cancer mortality rate over the past 10 years is screening for early detection. Despite the trillions spent on research, and all of the signalling molecules, genes, proteins etc that have been discovered, and so on, there has been very little effective therapy arising. The really surprising data on the CDC powerpoint is the massive rise in the lung cancer mortality despite the steady decline in smoking over the past 40 years (slides 9 and 10).
You could draw the following conclusion – many of the current cancer paradigms are flawed – and require a global re-think.
Sean
June 19th, 2009 at 11:07 PM #
Peter, thanks for sharing your insights. I wonder what this global re-think would or should include?
Peter French
June 25th, 2009 at 1:13 AM #
Hi Sean, well, one interesting concept that seems to be growing in acceptance is that some cancers are caused by infectious organisms. “In 1991 Harald zur Hausen, who discovered in the early 70’s the association of HPV and cervical cancer, estimated that a significant fraction (~20%) of all human cancers worldwide are associated with infections due to viruses, including human papillomaviruses (cervical cancer and other skin cancers), human T-lymphotropic viruses (adult T-cell leukemias and lymphomas in endemic areas), hepatitis B virus (liver cancer), and Epstein-Barr virus (Burkitt lymphoma and nasopharyngeal carcinoma). This estimate may now need to be further revised upward … The list has now expanded to include a common bacterial pathogen (Helicobacter pylori infection with gastric carcinoma and mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue [MALT] lymphoma) as well as new viruses (hepatitis C virus [HCV] with liver cancer, human herpesvirus 6 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, human herpesvirus [also known as KSHV] with Kaposi sarcoma [KS], Castleman disease, and body cavity lymphomas).” This is from the first issue of the journal “Infectious Agents and Cancer”. So what if more than 20% of cancers were caused by infectious agents? That could mean that the reason why so much research into understanding the molecular signalling alterations in cancer cells has not led to effective therapy is because the target should be the agents that cause the cancer change. It’s an intriguing thought, isn’t it!
Sean
June 27th, 2009 at 8:11 PM #
Awesome. I had not even heard of infectious diseases in relation to cancer. I will have to take a look at that journal. Thanks again!
Peter French
June 30th, 2009 at 12:34 AM #
Well, the most well known cancer caused by an infectious agent is cervix cancer (caused by some strains of Human Papilloma Virus, HPV). This is the basis of how Gardasil, the HPV vaccine works.
How about this for a thought: It is accepted that 90% of breast cancers do not have a genetic origin. Whilst I am not saying this is definitely the case, what if there was an infectious agent responsible for these 90%? Imagine how the breast cancer paradigm would change.
By the way, there is evidence that some cancer cells can be killed by antibiotics, which do not touch their normal tissue counterparts (e.g. “Thiazole Antibiotics Target FoxM1 and Induce Apoptosis in Human Cancer Cells.” U G. Bhat et al. PLoS ONE. 2009; 4(5): e5592 (www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2680058).
Worth a shot, surely?