Plenty of data there from 1960 to 2012. Knock yourself out. It’s very easy to compare survival rates over time. You’ve been provided with these links in each of your past threads, nothing has changed in the overall story; steady improvement in most cancers.
Why are these stats better than the other stats? Is the other stats older?
Page 8.
5 year Survival rate 2006 to 2012
Prostate %99
Thyroid %98
Testis %96
Melanoma of skin %91
Breast %91
Hodgkin Lymphoma %86
Corpus & Uterus, NOS %84
Urinary bladder %78
Kaposi Sarcoma %77
Kidney & Renal Pelvis %74
Non Hodgkin Lymphoma %71
Cervix Uteri %69
Rectum %67
Oral Cavity & Pharynx %66
Colon %65
Larynx %62
Leukemia %60
Lyeloma %48
Ovary %46
Brain & ONS %33
Stomach %29
Esophagus %19
Lung & Bronchus %18
Liver & IBD %17
Mesothelioma %9
Pancreas %8
What other stats? What are you comparing? Again, similar to the threads you started about cancer treatments you need to clearly and explicitly state what you are talking about or there’s no way to answer your questions.
**
May be places with universal health care. But lot of Americans that are poor or lower middle class normally have lot going on with their body and many times have many symptoms or really bad symptoms when show up in ER. Some one cold have shortness of breath but the lack of money for the tests so they wait to the symptoms get worse or have other symptoms than show up at the ER.
These stats. I don’t know if these are stats from 2000 or 2005 or when they where done.
May be these stats from the UK and the other stats are from the US.
Web site…
No one here is going to know. They’re unsourced charts from some random blogs. Find the sources and use those. The information isn’t hard to find.
What is this target drugs that some people here are talking about? Saying they are doing research and testing into target drugs therapy. How does this work and how will this help?
It was explained to you several times in your previous threads:
[ul]
[li]http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=734400[/li][li]http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=685410[/li][li]http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=737791[/li][/ul]
Perhaps you should re-read those threads and come back with questions that weren’t adequately answered repeatedly there.
People where saying some thing about genes here in this thread and targeted drug delivery and some so called personalized medicine.
Unless you or some are thinking of some thing else.
Go back up the page and (re)read my post #14 for a very brief description of immunotherapy and how a targeted therapy specific for leukemia and lymphoma works.
How this helps is that the immuno meds are generally less toxic to the body - they don’t go trying to kill every cell in the body like traditional chemo meds.
I’m an eight year breast cancer survivor (just had my annual mammogram and it was “unremarkable”, yay!) and the chemo and radiation saved my life.
My surgeon explained it this way: The surgery cuts out what cancer is there, the chemo and radiation make sure it doesn’t come back. It had not spread to my lymph nodes so that was incredibly good news.
Get your mammograms, ladies, and gentlemen, you can get breast cancer too.
Best analogy some one explain to be about cancer and drugs is think of tank full water and fish in the water tank!!! Yes green fish and blue fish. How do you kill the blue fish but not the green fish? You could put bleach, poison or toxin in water!! But this will kill all the fish. You just want to kill the blue fish.
Now you know why making drugs so hard to kill cancer.
Now if you thinking wait one minute, does cancer cell not have some kind of protein or marker like a virus or bacteria that is different than other normal cell. It was explain in other threads here yes it does!!
But the lock and key analogy you learn in high school is oversimplified and is more complex. The drug just won’t go after that proteins or marker. You can’t make drug that only goes after than one protein or marker. No matter how hard you try.:mad::mad::mad: Other normal and healthy cells will die. And your body chemistry will go off.
Only thing they can do is keep side effect down as much as possible and try to do little harm they can to other normal healthy cells.
They hope in the future there will be nanobots and these nano robots will be eaten and the doctor will drive the nanobots to the target site and release the payload. But we are no where close that level of technology .
We still don’t know how to drive the nanobots in body!! Some say laser light and other say magnetism. We still don’t know how stop the immune system going after and killing the nanobots before it goes to target site.
With out this being solved it cannot go to clinical trials.
I have not read much about immunotherapy so this is very new for me.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the 5 year survival rate for an average, cancer-free person of, say 58?
To be fair, chemotherapy drugs do try and target cancerous cells. But the way they do it is very general. For example, if they target rapidly replicating cells, then yes, many cancerous cells will be at a replication stage affected. But so would some normal cells in the body, like in the hair or gut or bone marrow (immune system). They are not abnormal, they just naturally replicate faster.
Immunotherapy tries to minimize the side effects and maximize efficiency by centering on products that are very unique to the cancer cells, so much that even fewer normal cells would be affected.
Stats are probably from 2007 it looks similar to this one.
These older stats from 2007 of cancer survival rates 1971 to 2007.
Of a 10 year survival rates 1971 to 2007.
Though “feels like” is not evidence. My wife had a stage 3 lymphoma that required a very aggressive treatment protocol (Magrath Protocol) with four alternating cycles which totaled about 30 days of chemo during a four month hospital stay, followed by 20 days of radiation.
She’s been cancer-free about four years and 11 months. The treatment did kick the crap out of her and she’s living with a perpetual energy crisis.
OTOH I read somewhere (no cite and I can’t remember the details) that had she been diagnosed with the same thing in the 80s it would have been game over.