PDA

View Full Version : Cancer survival rates US vs Europe



genglandoh
11-19-2013, 12:35 PM
I wonder why Europe has such a low survival rate.




Nation
Breast (Female)
Cervical (Female)
Colon (Male)
Lung (Male)
Prostate (Male)
Thyroid


United States
82.8
69
61.7
12
81.2
95.9


- White
83.9
71.8
62.5
12
82.7
95.7


- Black
69.2
55.6
52.6
12
69.2
93


United Kingdom
66.7
62.6
41
7
44.3
74.4


Denmark
70.6
64.2
39.2
5.6
41
71.7


France
80.3
64.1
51.8
11.5
61.7
81


Germany
71.7
64.1
51.8
11.5
61.7
81


Italy
76.7
64
46.9
8.6
47.4
77


Sweden
80.6
68
51.8
8.8
47.4
77


Switzerland
79.6








http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_survival_rates

David W Pratt
11-19-2013, 12:37 PM
Cause our medical system is so dysfunctional?

LeeG
11-19-2013, 12:50 PM
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

Captain Intrepid
11-19-2013, 12:50 PM
Well, once contributing factor is age. Older people have a lower survival rate. The US has a low life expectancy as first world countries go, so naturally it's survival rate is higher. If you look at cancer mortality rates per 1000, it probably puts things in better perspective. Puts the USA right in the middle of the road there.

Keith Wilson
11-19-2013, 12:54 PM
And yet . . .
. . . survival rates in Canada, Japan, Australia and Cuba were all comparable to or higher than U.S. survival rates on all types of cancer that the Lancet study examined, except for prostate cancer.

http://www.project.org/images/graphs/Life_Expectancy_1.jpg

Gerarddm
11-19-2013, 12:55 PM
Cultural differences? Why do you think?

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 12:59 PM
Cultural differences? Why do you think?

I would say it must be
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
or a combination of the two.

jonboy
11-19-2013, 01:00 PM
One chart doesn't tell the whole tale....there was a recent survey examining death rates in hospitals that appeared to paint a bleak picture for the uk compared for instance the Netherlands..... statistically many more die in hospital in the uk....one interpretation.... it seems the Dutch authorities will go to any length to let people die in their own homes...that is you are about to die, we send you home, in uk you are about to die we keep you in intensive care.... ergo lots of people die in uk in hospital, statistics are skewed.

As a survivor (so far !) of colon cancer I have a vested interest in interpreting this kind of statistic...just about every erudite survey i have looked at has had significantly differnt results...
one example (outside of the erudition admittedly,) press release... ' scientists have discovered a gene that predisposes one in ten people to be immune to colon cancer...' Not news worthy enough, so the reports in one paper read 'ninety percent of people at risk of colon cancer due to lack of newly discovered gene'

Now that sells papers, and the ad space for the backpages selling 'new diet supplement reduces blah blah blah'

CWSmith
11-19-2013, 01:57 PM
One chart doesn't tell the whole tale....

No, but it's better to be white than black in the US.


As a survivor (so far !) of colon cancer ...

Good luck, and I do mean that.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 02:01 PM
I would say it must be
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
or a combination of the two.

There is another possible reason
The treatment may also be better in the US.

jonboy
11-19-2013, 02:03 PM
Good luck, and I do mean that.


Thank you... may it never darken your (back) door any doubt, check it out

John of Phoenix
11-19-2013, 02:13 PM
I would say it must be
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
or a combination of the two.It's just your wild ass guess but "it must be".

LeeG
11-19-2013, 02:18 PM
http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/cancer_frequency.php

Michael D. Storey
11-19-2013, 02:20 PM
I would say it must be
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
or a combination of the two.

3. There are more liberals here.

LeeG
11-19-2013, 02:23 PM
http://www.wcrf.org/cancer_statistics/data_specific_cancers/lung_cancer_statistics.php

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 02:34 PM
It's just your wild ass guess but "it must be".

Sorry for the poor wording.

Do you have any thoughts on the subject?

Keith Wilson
11-19-2013, 02:41 PM
Note on prostate cancer, from the factcheck.org site LeeG linked (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/).


Prostate cancer often doesn’t require treatment (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prostate-cancer/HQ01273/NSECTIONGROUP=2), so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed.

Note Cuba.

Mrleft8
11-19-2013, 02:53 PM
Have you been diagnosed with cancer Graham?

peb
11-19-2013, 03:13 PM
By all means, you should pick the explanation you like best.

That way, there is no reason to read the link in post #3.

I read the link and nothing in it contradicts genglandoh's conclusion. If anything, it supports it. It basically says "yes, assuming one has insurance". Now, we would all agree that the uninsured is a problem in the US ( will still be a problem after the full implementation of obamacare btw), but the results certainly shows one strength of our system.

skuthorp
11-19-2013, 03:21 PM
"Prostate cancer often doesnít require treatment (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prostate-cancer/HQ01273/NSECTIONGROUP=2), so the aggressive screening common in the U.S. turns up both early cases and cases that would never need intervention. This leads to an inflated survival rate in the U.S., where asymptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed."

My father had prostate cancer from about 80, he survived happily till 96 and that wasn't what killed him. He often said with a laugh that "I'll kill it before it kills me".

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 03:58 PM
By all means, you should pick the explanation you like best.

That way, there is no reason to read the link in post #3.

I was asked my opinion so I gave my opinion then added another possible reason.

Sometimes I just do not understand why you spend more time attacking people instead of adding to the thread.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 04:03 PM
One chart doesn't tell the whole tale....there was a recent survey examining death rates in hospitals that appeared to paint a bleak picture for the uk compared for instance the Netherlands..... statistically many more die in hospital in the uk....one interpretation.... it seems the Dutch authorities will go to any length to let people die in their own homes...that is you are about to die, we send you home, in uk you are about to die we keep you in intensive care.... ergo lots of people die in uk in hospital, statistics are skewed.

As a survivor (so far !) of colon cancer I have a vested interest in interpreting this kind of statistic...just about every erudite survey i have looked at has had significantly differnt results...
one example (outside of the erudition admittedly,) press release... ' scientists have discovered a gene that predisposes one in ten people to be immune to colon cancer...' Not news worthy enough, so the reports in one paper read 'ninety percent of people at risk of colon cancer due to lack of newly discovered gene'

Now that sells papers, and the ad space for the backpages selling 'new diet supplement reduces blah blah blah'

Great to hear you are doing well.

I do not understand your point.
Where people die is not important in this comparison.
If you die of cancer at home or in a hospital you still die and are not a survivor.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 04:19 PM
I don't understand how otherwise seemingly rational and well educated and mature adults allow themselves to be fooled by the type of data that's been presented by the original poster to this thread. Nor do I understand the desire to further spin it to oneself and others, like peb has in post #21.

This truly baffles me.

The data is correct and the only other link that was given also supports that the US has a higher survival rate then Europe.

The issue is why?


Itís certainly the case that we have higher survival rates than the United Kingdom and other countries with nationalized health care. Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18639491) in the British medical journal Lancet. For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/

Keith Wilson
11-19-2013, 04:22 PM
. . . rather than playing girly games to stir up troubleBigfella, I realize you have some long-running issues with a couple of people here, and that part of it's an Australian thing, but this is totally unnecessary. You're acting like a schmuck.

The Bigfella
11-19-2013, 04:31 PM
Bigfella, I realize you have some long-running issues with a couple of people here, and that part of it's an Australian thing, but this is totally unnecessary. You're acting like a schmuck.

Of course, Keith. Just holding the mirror up to a couple of people for a couple of days. Exact same behaviour. Feel free to tell all who do it the same thing.

As for "long-running issues" - I've never held a grudge in my life.

PeterSibley
11-19-2013, 04:38 PM
Bigfella, I realize you have some long-running issues with a couple of people here, and that part of it's an Australian thing, but this is totally unnecessary. You're acting like a schmuck.

Not Australian , strictly Ian .

The Bigfella
11-19-2013, 04:45 PM
Not Australian , strictly Ian .

Geez, thanks Peter.

Now, back to the original topic.

There's so many factors that need to be considered - and Keith's post #5 says it all

AndyG
11-19-2013, 04:56 PM
I wonder why Europe has such a low survival rate.




Nation
Breast (Female)
Cervical (Female)
Colon (Male)
Lung (Male)
Prostate (Male)
Thyroid


United States
82.8
69
61.7
12
81.2
95.9


- White
83.9
71.8
62.5
12
82.7
95.7


- Black
69.2
55.6
52.6
12
69.2
93



Now I find that is more interesting than the original question.

Andy

jonboy
11-19-2013, 05:02 PM
Great to hear you are doing well.

I do not understand your point.
Where people die is not important in this comparison.
If you die of cancer at home or in a hospital you still die and are not a survivor.
My personal brush with death (BIT DRAMATIC) allowed me to take a step back and evaluate many aspects of my life...with many possible conclusions, f*** it we're all dead sooner or later or any other variations et al
My point was not the evidence of where people die, but the interpretation of such statistics as illustrated by that example. my point was also, based on a personal interest you might say, the way that cancer statistics can be manipulated for local interest... hospital funding here , uk national health cuts or investments,, obamacare in your area maybe... bottom line (pardon the pun) is don't take one set of statistics as incontravertable truth over another...they are all open to interpretation for fiscal federal or personal faith reasons

Soundbounder
11-19-2013, 05:36 PM
I do not understand your point.
Where people die is not important in this comparison.
If you die of cancer at home or in a hospital you still die and are not a survivor.

He used it as an example of one chart not telling the whole story. I agree with him.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 06:11 PM
He used it as an example of one chart not telling the whole story. I agree with him.

What about 2 sources?

If you have followed the thread you will see that both wikipedia and factcheck agree with the main point.

US has a better cancer survival rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_survival_rates

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/can...d-conclusions/ (http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/)

Captain Intrepid
11-19-2013, 06:17 PM
Numbers mean nothing. Numbers plus the reasons behind them mean everything.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 06:21 PM
Numbers mean nothing. Numbers plus the reasons behind them mean everything.

Please do not forget these numbers are people who are dying of cancer.

AndyG
11-19-2013, 06:23 PM
US has a better cancer survival rate.

If you don't happen to be a black woman.

What IS your point?

Andy

Captain Intrepid
11-19-2013, 06:32 PM
Please do not forget these numbers are people who are dying of cancer.

That must be why I'm not trying to use them to score cheap political points.

Soundbounder
11-19-2013, 06:37 PM
US has a better cancer survival rate.


And Canada, Japan, Australia, and Cuba have comparable or higher survival rates than the US.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 06:42 PM
That must be why I'm not trying to use them to score cheap political points.

I do not see anyone trying to score cheap political point.
I do see a few who want to jump on anything I say just to score cheap points.

Do you have any reasons other then the ones I suggested as to why Europe has such a low survival rate?

hokiefan
11-19-2013, 06:44 PM
I do not see anyone trying to score cheap political point.
I do see a few who want to jump on anything I say just to score cheap points.

Do you have any reasons other then the ones I suggested as to why Europe has such a low survival rate?

Every post you make here is to score cheap political points against the Democrats, Obama in particular.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 06:45 PM
And Canada, Japan, Australia, and Cuba have comparable or higher survival rates than the US.

Can you support this?
If true it makes Europe even lower.

Captain Intrepid
11-19-2013, 06:46 PM
I do not see anyone trying to score cheap political point.
I do see a few who want to jump on anything I say just to score cheap points.

Do you have any reasons other then the ones I suggested as to why Europe has such a low survival rate?

I suggested one contributing factor. You on the other hand insisted it must be a combination of two reasons, both of which were designed to denigrate European healthcare systems in comparison to the American. The language we choose with which to convey our opinions is very telling as to our motivations.

Captain Intrepid
11-19-2013, 06:50 PM
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/

Just about every first world country in the world is within +-10% of each other. Interesting.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 07:17 PM
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/

Just about every first world country in the world is within +-10% of each other. Interesting.

I do not think this is a fair way to measure how well a countries healthcare is working.
But lets assume it and do the math.

US population is has 314 million people.
The cancer rate is 123.8 per 100,000 people for a total of 388,732 people
The UK has a rate of 137 per 100,000 people
So if the US rate was 137 the total number of people would be 430,180.

So the US would have an additional 41,448 people die of cancer.

George Jung
11-19-2013, 07:47 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Sorry; tried to paste a graph.... wouldn't let me! Arrr!

But the take home - overall life expectancy rank is not to brag about for the USA; we may survive cancer better (and I don't have a reference suggesting why) - but in the end, we don't survive as long as many other countries.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 07:49 PM
the difference in rates is a small percentage of the total. When you factor in all the things that the link in post #3 explained to account for difference in the stats, you simply can't defend your absolutist conclusion.

Interesting 41,4488 people do not count.
A little cold.

As to my absolutist conclusion I am sorry you think this.
I gave the reasons I think there is a difference in survivor rates but I also am open to other ideas if the argument is good.

So let me understand your point
Are you saying these following factors have no effect or do you think they are just not true?
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
3. The treatment may also be better in the US.
or a combination of the three.

George Jung
11-19-2013, 08:00 PM
Thought this was interesting:



MONDAY, April 9 (HealthDay News) -- The United States spends more on health care than any other country, but those high costs may be paying off in cancer (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13931) survival, a new report suggests.
U.S. cancer patients often live almost two years longer than similar patients in Europe, arguing for the dollar value of care given, researchers say.
However, Dr. Otis Brawley, the chief medical officer and executive vice president at the American Cancer Society, who was not involved in the study, said that "this paper has a huge fatal flaw in it."
"When you look at survival from time of diagnosis to time of death and you have a screened population that has a lot of diagnoses, you're filling that population with people who don't need treatment and because they are over-diagnosed, they have very long survival," he added.
These researchers attribute increased survival to the treatment, when it is really over-diagnosis, Brawley said. "So they are looking at a bunch of wasted, unnecessary treatment and then saying it was money well spent," he said.
"You don't look at survival rates -- this is a classic misuse of survival rates," Brawley said. "You have to look at death rates for each disease and not survival rates. The measurement should not be expense versus survival -- it should be expense versus mortality rate."
On that scale, the United States does well for some cancers and as well as they do in most of Europe for others, he said. "Mortality rates for breast (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9871) and colon cancer (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=326) are close to the mortality rates in Europe, but that may include the effect of over-treatment," Brawley said. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=156916

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 08:17 PM
Thought this was interesting:

Thanks.
I did not think the cancer death rate was a good way to measure a countries healthcare.
If a country has a high level of cancer it would also have a high death rate even if the healthcare system is excellent.
For example if a country has a high pollution level (like areas of China) you would expect a high level of cancer deaths.

Even thou the article does not address the above issue I will accept Dr. Brawley's conclusions because I am sure he does know the subject.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 08:34 PM
uhhhh, that isn't what you clearly implied in post #7 and elsewhere.

I thought I was clear in Post #7 I was talking about the thread title cancer survival rates.

In post#44 the link to cancer death rates was posted.

In post#45 I responded with

I do not think this is a fair way to measure how well a countries healthcare is working.
But lets assume it and do the math.

US population is has 314 million people.
The cancer rate is 123.8 per 100,000 people for a total of 388,732 people
The UK has a rate of 137 per 100,000 people
So if the US rate was 137 the total number of people would be 430,180.

So the US would have an additional 41,448 people die of cancer.

The Bigfella
11-19-2013, 08:48 PM
Let's not forget, the US percentage of GDP spent on healthcare is double that of the UK and Germany.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 08:52 PM
A difference in rate of.... Wait for it.... 0.1238% versus 0.1370%...

in the world of statistics, I believe that this is defined as 'statistically insignificant'.... And without any specific proven reason for the difference, but with dozens of possible reasons.

The difference is 10% more cancer deaths or 41,448 people not 'statistically insignificant'.

So the only thing that has changes is the size of the difference between the US and the UK.
The questions still remains why?

I still think my reasons are valid.
1. Earlier detection in the US
2. Faster treatment once detected in the US
3. The treatment may also be better in the US.
or a combination of the three.

These things do cost more money and the article posted supports that the US spends more.

genglandoh
11-19-2013, 09:05 PM
geng, I have no desire to embarrass you, so I suggest you go back and look at your math, because you're making a mistake for which you should be VERY embarrassed.

here is a hint: your error is in the difference between absolute numbers and rates.

It it is NOT 10%.

heres another hint: what is the population of the UK?

Here is my math
UK 137 deaths per 100,000
US 123.8 death per 100,000
US Population 314,000,000

Rates
137/123.8= 1.106 or 10.6% higher.

Absolute numbers
(314,000,000/100,000)*137 = 430,180 people
(314,000,000/100,000)*123.8= 388,732 people

430,180/388,732 = 1.106 or 10.6% higher

leikec
11-19-2013, 11:07 PM
My wife has stage IV ovarian cancer. The median survival time for her stage, tumor grading and volume is about 28 months.

I have a special place in my heart reserved for the idjits who play political football with cancer statistics.

Jeff C

Tom Hunter
11-20-2013, 07:58 AM
George found some interesting data, I'll add one more point that I found when I followed the link to the study (thanks for posting it). The table is based on data from the mid 1980s.

So if you got cancer in the mid 1980s it was much better get treatment in the US. That was 25 years ago. We are writing as if this thread is about cancer survival, but its actually about history.

Keith Wilson
11-20-2013, 08:29 AM
The table is based on data from the mid 1980s.LOL! Wow, thanks. I knew it was cherry-picked to make a point, but I hadn't yet figured out how.

You spend twice as much money, one would think you'd get something for it. Not much, though. If we spent on health care at the level of the rest of the civilized world, that would free up over 1 TRILLION per year.

That damned chart again.

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-YH203_HEALTH_G_20130723135724.jpg

genglandoh
11-20-2013, 09:31 AM
My wife has stage IV ovarian cancer. The median survival time for her stage, tumor grading and volume is about 28 months.

I have a special place in my heart reserved for the idjits who play political football with cancer statistics.

Jeff C

I am sorry for your wife's condition.
I hope you and your family can get through this.

When a close family member has a serious medical problem some do not understand how devastating it is to the whole family.

My wife's sister just went into the Hospital for the third time this year for breast cancer.
There is a lot of stress on the family.
We drove the 500 miles to visit for 4 days and did what we could.
The visit helped but it was only temporary.

Keith Wilson
11-20-2013, 09:36 AM
My wife has stage IV ovarian cancer.Oy, missed that. I'm very, very sorry to hear it, and I hope things go as well as possible.