Mothering Forum banner

Cancer statistics

1K views 5 replies 5 participants last post by  stevebhailey 
#1 ·
I have been confused and, frankly, suspicious about cancer stats for years. I was hoping that either health professionals or statisticians on the board could help me make sense of it all.

Just to keep things simple, I'm going to stick to breast cancer statistics for now.
A local hospital just took out an ad in the paper for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. They listed the following statistics (all stats here are from Canada).

Quote:
Women diagnosed with breast cancer in last year - 22,000
Women who will die of BC in same year - 5,300
Sounds like about one in four women diagnosed will die of breast cancer. Then it goes on:

Quote:
One in nine women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime.
One in 27 women will die of it.
Now, that sounds like one in three diagnosed will die of the disease.

What really throws me off is the very common statement that breast cancer death rates are steadily declining, and that over 80% of women diagnosed with breast cancer become successful breast cancer survivors. That made no sense to me at all, until I read that someone who lives five years or more after diagnosis is considered a "cancer survivor." The Canadian Cancer Society says that the 5 year survival rate for breast cancer is 86%, so I thought that was probably what they were talking about. (Of course, the CCS also says that the mortality rate for breast cancer is 23 per 100,000 cases, and I have no idea where that fits in.)
So I am assuming that when health experts talk about a declining breast cancer rate, what they really mean is that women are taking longer to die from breast cancer, and a greater number take more than 5 years. When they say that early diagnosis means a greater chance of survival, I assume that the earlier you find the cancer, the more likely it is that you will die more than 5 years later, since the cancer was found at an earlier date. If that is the way the statistic is used, doesn't that mean that a woman can die of breast cancer and still be counted as a breast cancer survivor, as long as she died five years and one day after her initial diagnosis?
And what about the differing statistics on death rates? Is it one in four, one in three, 23 per 100,000, or are all the stats being manipulated in one way or another?

Is there more to it? What am I missing here?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
In the first one, it says 22,000 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,300 died in 2006. But that doesn't mean that 1 out of 4 with breast cancer died. There were 22,000 women diagnosed in 2006 but how many others have breast cancer in 2006 who were diagnosed in 2005 or earlier? Way more than 22,000. And out of THAT large number, 5,300 will die.

In the second one, they say that 1 in 9 women will get breast cancer. Of these 1 in 27 women *diagnosed with breast cancer* will die from it. Not that 1 in 27 of all women will die from breast cancer.

And yes, statistics are easily manipulated. Isn't there some phrase like there are lies, damn lies, and statistics??
 
#3 ·
Cancer is soo sad no matter what the stats say IMHO. I try not to look at the stats, cuase frankly it scares me. I loved something i heard a while ago (OK it was on ER, and rocket Remano said it LOL)

" Cancer, the very process that allows 2 single cells to grow in the womb to create life, the very same process our bodies use to regenerate us adn keep us healthy. Turning on us, eating us alive. Brain cancer, breast cancer, lung cancer, it is all the same betrayer, our very own cells turning on us and attacking us."
 
#4 ·
..

Quote:
. a woman can die of breast cancer and still be counted as a breast cancer survivor, as long as she died five years and one day after her initial diagnosis?
exactly. that and statistics are used to manipulate.

There is NO cure for cancer. A cure implies no recurrence. Something no oncologist will gurantee. So they use "survivor" instead. Nice word but it does not mean much.

Quote:
Is there more to it?
i have always suspected that there is.

50 years of research and no cure yet? $ 30 billion donated...give me a break.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chri...uper_fraud.htm

Quote:
"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling PhD (Two-time Nobel Prize winner).
http://www.fwhc.org/health/nocure.htm
 
#5 ·
Thanks for the information.

One other thing I wonder about is the effectiveness of standard treatment. I have seen statistics which compare two forms of treatment - for example, chemo plus radiation versus only one or the other - but I have no idea how effective any of these treatments are. The only comparison that makes sense to me would be comparing a person who receives no treatment at all with those who receive chemo, radiation, or other treatment. Otherwise, how do we know any of them really work? Is this kind of information even available, or is there another way to determine if a treatment works, and how well?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top