Slashdot Mirror
Breast-Cancer Death Rate Drops Almost 40 Percent, Saving 322,000 Lives, Study Says (washingtonpost.com)
Breast cancer death rates declined almost 40 percent between 1989 and 2015, averting 322,600 deaths, the American Cancer Society reported Tuesday. From a report: Breast cancer death rates increased by 0.4 percent per year from 1975 to 1989, according to the study. After that, mortality rates decreased rapidly, for a 39 percent drop overall through 2015. The report, the latest to document a long-term reduction in breast-cancer mortality, attributed the declines to both improvements in treatments and to early detection by mammography. Deanna Attai, a breast cancer surgeon at the University of California at Los Angeles who was not involved in the study, said the advances in treatment included much better chemotherapy regimens -- developed in the 1980s and refined ever since -- that are administered post-surgery to reduce the risk of recurrence. Other improvements have included tamoxifen, an anti-estrogen agent that was approved in the late 1970s; Herceptin, a drug used to treat tumors with a higher-than-normal level of a protein called HER2 and drugs called aromatase inhibitors.
they just delaying fate
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
It's obvious.
If I read that correctly, this means that of all the cases reported now, the overall odds of death have dropped 40% compared to all the cases reported thirty years ago or so. That doesn't mean the odds of survival for a given diagnosis have improved 40%. One reason cited was the increased early detection through mammograms, so clearly some of the improvement is from shifting the average diagnosis to a less severe tumor. This raises the issue of tumors that are now detected which in the 70s would have gone unnoticed, and wouldn't have progressed, but are now detected and removed. (I'm not an expert, but I read on the Internet that this is an issue, so it must be true.) If you take that into account, it may pull down the overall percentage a tick.
In any case, it's clearly good news, but I've still lost a friend from breast cancer, but I'm hopeful that another will survive. I'm looking forward to what the next decade or two bring with better understanding of the genetic differences of specific cancers and vaccines or other drugs designed to target those differences.
Without these advances, my wife would likely have died of this disease. Instead, she's alive, and despite the fact that breast cancer survivorship is no walk in the park, she's still able to do most of what she did before.
It's incredible how much medical science has advanced on breast cancer since the late 80's. I hope the research keeps its momentum.
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
thoughts and prayers
republican?
Nah. The goal is to have every man get prostate cancer so they need a prostatectomy and become impotent.
Troll?
A victory for sure, but not nearly enough. Feminism will not be complete until every man dies of ass cancer.
They'll have a party after you expire of it. Along with the rest of humanity.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Over the past 30 years, my wife has survived breast cancer 3 times. All three occurrences were classified as new primaries. The third time was HER2 positive, which meant chemo for a year. The first six rounds were classic chemo plus Herceptin, followed by another 8 rounds of Herceptin only. She has also been on tamoxifen for the last 5 years. The first two occurrences were early enough that the HER2 factor wasn't even discovered. Thankfully, it seems that neither of the first two were HER2 positive anyway, as both were not as aggressive as the third. The key in all three cases was early detection. I noticed a comment above about delaying fate. In a way this is true, in that she will be able in the future to die of something other than breast cancer. In the mean time, we get to enjoy retirement together. Modern medicine has kept us both alive, as I am around thanks to a triple bypass.
It tastes wonderful.
Just what we need. More droopy breasts
Tax dollars means violence and theft... so lets end the deprivation of people's rights and labour (which ultimately translates into craftily induced slavery) and push toward what was an American tradition: Charity. Something that when genuine isn't dependent on the use of violence or theft to extract from unwilling participants. We would be better able to be charitable when governments didn't enslave our being to them for 70% of the day. That is the government steals about 70% of your wealth via income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, vehicular registration "fees", and dozens of other hidden taxes and fees (ie only half of your income tax is obvious as the other half that is stolen from you is paid from a portion of your paycheck most don't know exist, except for those self-employed, who have to pay the whole thing). If you think there should be no law for which isn't involving theft or violence check out the Free State Project- a migration of liberty-minded people to New Hampshire for the purpose of expanding freedom and ending the totalitarian world we live in- within our life time- at least in New Hampshire.
except for cancer
My parents smoked all their adult lives. The father lived to 89 and the mother lived to 76 (the average for her side of the family). They were never sick and never got any diseases. The mother did develop somewhat of a hump back with osteoporosis. There were three thing they continuously did: drink 2 to 3 cups of coffee in the morning, fix and eat homemade fudge almost every week (dark chocolate), and religiously had a high ball at 5:00 pm every day.
Before donating to any such charities, please do a quick search with charitynavigator or charitywatch:
https://www.charitynavigator.o...
https://www.charitywatch.org/
Also takes lives of about 1 in 40
That 40% reduction in 26 years is great, of course, but what about that 0.4% increase per year from 1975 to 1989?
What has caused that? Because that adds up to 5.6% increase in 14 years. It is uncertain that whatever caused that increase is gone now.
If that influence is gone, removing that influence can be credited for a sizable chunk of that 40% reduction.
If that influence is still there, that 40% could have been much higher.
Still, the remaining black-white disparity âoeis not acceptable,â said Lee Schwartzberg, a medical oncologist at West Cancer Center in Germantown, Tenn. He said the gap reflects complicated social, economic and biological factors that are not yet fully understood, including insurance and employment status. In addition, black women are twice as likely as white women to develop so-called triple negative breast cancer, which can be harder to treat, the report noted.
They do a study and find that people with African ancestry tend to have a kind of cancer that we don't yet know how to treat. What if this disparity was found between people from Angola vs. Kenya? Would this be "unacceptable? What if it was between Greeks and French? Would that be "unacceptable"? They can call this "complicated" all they like but the reason that this one group tends to have higher rates of deaths from cancer is clear from the paragraph I quoted, it's genetic. There's nothing we can do about one's genes.
It seems obvious they know the reason why the disparity exists, it's genetic. However, when we equate this disparity to race instead of genetics then it becomes "unacceptable" to people. It's unfortunate that we cannot treat this "triple negative" cancer better. Research into treating this cancer should continue, as should treatments for all kinds of cancer. Seeing this as a matter of race instead of genetics turns a problem of medicine and science into a political issue.
Can we leave politics out of science? Please? Politics ruined football. If sanity is not regained then politics will ruin everything.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Genderswapping 4 times in 3 years tends to leave your breasts in a medical waste bin. Mind you, the suicide and urinary tract rates *skyrocket*, along with the inevetiable iatrogenic mortality of such body-modification therapy.
But, his ass tulip was so poignant, and fragrant, I relied on it blossoming every spring to cheer me up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Breast cancer can be avoided by avoiding animal products and eating a whole food plant based diet. See the movie "Forks Over Knives" on Netflix, or read "The China Study" by T. Colin Campbell, or search for Dr. Campbell videos on YouTube.
Do you know your claims are false, or do you not care?
The fact is that similar numbers of people die from both.
Prostate cancer is diagnosed far more often, and men suffer from a larger number of life-impacting operations to remove their prostate than for breast cancer.
There are 8 TIMES as many drugs developed for breast cancer than prostate cancer.
Undiagnosed mortality rates from both are quite similar, although higher for prostate cancer.
Screening for breast cancer received around 10 TIMES the funding of prostate cancer.
Research funding for breast cancer is 2 to 4 times that of prostate cancer.
Equality, got to love it. Men die earlier than Women on average, and Womens health gets much much more funding.
Welcome to real sexism, the type that isnt talked about because its not seen as 'an issue'
Wake me up when women have to register for the draft, and their life expectancy is the same as that of men.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Smoking is correlated to breast cancer, and people smoke much less now.
It is actually surprising how ineffective medical advances have been over the last 50 years. Despite an enormous improvement in technology people do not live much longer than they used to. And much of the difference is due to reducing smoking.
This is in strong contrast to the understanding of germs as the cause of disease in the late 1800s which had a dramatic effect. Antibiotics in the 1940s were helpful, but not as much. And since them very little indeed. Most people just grow old and die from miscellaneous diseases, maybe modern medicine adds a few years.
I wonder how much money was donated and spent on breast cancer research during those years?