I read this NYT article today which stated that, after having adjusted for increased population, the death rate for cancer has fallen a mere 5% since 1950. I found this pretty horrifying, and have been googling ever since to try and find some indication of where we, as a species, are in our war against cancer. Sadly, my google-fu is weak and I’m no closer to an answer than when I started. In my desperation, I turn to the Teeming Millions. How long, approximately, do you think we will have to wait until the war against cancer is won? I don’t believe that victory need necessarily take the form of a “magic bullet” pill or inoculation. It could be that we win by incrementally improving our treatments until cancer becomes a non-fatal chronic condition, one that people simply have to live with. Roughly how long do you think it will be until we reach that point? For instance, I’m 29 years old. Is it reasonable to expect such a victory in my lifetime?
P.S. - I’m aware, of course, that the word ‘cancer’ denotes an enormous range of diseases, and that our progress against cancer has been enormously asymmetrical, with some cancers (ie. Testicular, or Hodgkins Lymphoma) having cure rates close to 100%, while other cancers like Glioblastoma Multiformae, or Small cell lung cancer, having death rates of close to 100%. I’m really asking about those cancers on which progress seems to have stalled, brain tumours, lung cancers and the like. Cheers.
You obviously didn’t read the whole OP now did you? He was specifically asking about cancers we’ve made progress towards at least stalling the inevitable but have come to a standstill in said progress.
Many brain tumors can be cured on an outpatient basis. Try gamma knife. Also, they are now using proton beams generated by cyclotrons to fry certain tumors leaving other tissue spared.
Each type of cancer is different, and we have good methods for many. Early detection is still the key. I am infuriated my doctor ignored my symptoms for 2 years and now it likely will kill me.
[hijack]
A few years ago I heard of an effort, sponsored and coordinated at a very high level of government/health research (possibly the NIH?) to have research physicists, inorganic chemists, etc,:
review the very questions being asked by cancer researchers (i.e. are the latter asking the ‘right’ questions)
and
from their perspective as physicists, etc, and despite them having no training or special knowledge about cancer, ask “out of left field” questions about cancer and cancer research, and identify hidden assumptions that cancer researchers may be using.
Anyone know about this? In particular, any follow-up?
If you think that statistic is horrifying, then this article should send you straight to the fetal position. Increasingly, the wisdom has become that even within certain types of cancer, the variation is enormous. There isn’t one testicular cancer and one brain cancer, there are thousands of each kind. Now, according to this, the variation within each tumor is possibly very high.
My speculation, is that this could help account for why cancers typically become resistant to the therapies that had been used on them in the past. Like bacteria, the ones that survive the first round are more likely to survive the second. There is enough variation within each tumor that some cells are inevitably resistant, and those cells continue to grow.
But, as an accompanying editorial (to the original NEJM article) stated, it was of great interest (and possibly of great importance) that many of the different mutations in different parts of the same tumor involved the same genes; and that many of those genes normally play key roles in cell growth, differentiation, and signalling. In other words, the presence of such so-called convergent evolution in the tumor may be telling us which genes are most critical for the tumor’s ongoing survival and proliferation, and hence which genes are likely to be good targets for repair or inhibition.
Well, we do get the occasional breakthrough. imatinib/Gleevec/Glivec was one such. Prior to its development there was no really effective treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia short of a bone marrow transplant. Now most patients can expect a normal life expectancy. It also can be used to treat a number of other cancers. But other mutations can crop up that produce resistance to imatinib, so they’ve developed some other drugs that usually work for them.
So that’s one breakthrough. We’ll need lots more like that.
my sister is a biochemical researcher, & she sez the only cure we’ll have for cancer & other costly diseases (in terms of life, not $$$) is stemcell therapy. Unfortunately, at least as of recently, the best ones are the ones that come from aborted babies. Were they to have more to experiment with, she sez the prevailing consensus in the biochem research community is the most deadly ones (like pancreatic) could be manageable in 5 years. She analogized it to AIDS - a serious lifestyle adjustment, but no longer a death sentence.
Just watched this, & it’s fascinating. Some cancers are stopped in their trax. The potential is promising. Well worth watching the hour.
Cancer is basically a catch-all term for a group of cells that are growing too fast. There are a LOT of different causes for this. There’s probably not ever going to be a generic “cure for cancer,” because cancer is not just one disease. Each responds differently to different treatments. It’s intellectually satisfying to talk about a cure for cancer, as though cancer was a singular illness, but that isn’t a medically-sound way to approach the question.
I read an article some years ago (sorry, no cite, going from memory), and a doctor gave his opinion on a cure for *cancer. His opinion, based on what we know about cancers is that the most likely “cure” would be treating it as a long-term incurable chronic condition the same way we treat others such as diabetes and hypertension. I guess that’s sorta what we do now, but so often the case is the cancer usually outwits the medication sooner rather than later.
*He was specifically talking about pancreatic cancer, and its miserable survival rates, but I think the same reasoning would apply to most others as well.
Oh, Christ I hope not! As far as I know, I’m currently big C free. That said, I am a pack a day smoker, so that may only be temporary. Although, I must admit, I’m mighty curious as to which thread you were referring to. Was it this one by any chance? If so, rest assured my current troubles are caused by a minor genetic condition that is pretty inconvenient, but not dangerous. But thanks for your concern, anyway.
Only for a very stretched definition of “aborted babies”. By the time a pregnancy is far enough along that you could have what most people consider an “abortion”, the stem cells have already differentiated into bone cells, muscle cells, nerve cells, etc., and you can’t get much that you couldn’t also get from an adult. Embryonic stem cells come from extra fertilized eggs at fertility clinics that don’t get implanted. Now, admittedly, some folks do use a definition of “abortion” that’s broad enough to encompass extra eggs at a fertility clinic, but that’s not the usual usage.
Seems to me it’s not as bad as it sounds, since dramatic improvements elsewhere necessarily increase the death rate for cancer.
Anyway, your question is necessarily speculative, but I am more optimistic than most. I predict that within 20 years, you will be able to test yourself for most kinds of cancer very easily, that it will be a matter of downloading a “test for cancer” ap to your phone. And that extremely early-detected cancers will be able to be zapped pretty easily with some kind of radiation gun.
The article says that it is adjusted for age, population etc, but I still don’t quite get what that means. We’re living much longer now, and for most cancers the incidence increases with age.
Even if we had successful therapies for many cancers I’d still expect it to be the reaper’s tool of choice for many of us. Is there a statistician / epidemiologist in the house?
ETA: Or, what brazil84 said.
I did some oncology modules as part of my master’s and we were taught about this as an observation (i.e. it wasn’t considered speculative).
As far as I know, I’m currently big C free. That said, I am a pack a day smoker, so that may only be temporary. Although, I must admit, I’m mighty curious as to which thread you were referring to. Was it