Register to reply

1/2 of all people develop some form of cancer within their lifetime?

by FishmanGeertz
Tags: 1 or 2, cancer, develop, form, lifetime, people
Share this thread:
Evo
#19
Jun2-11, 06:21 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,522
Quote Quote by FishmanGeertz View Post
Even if your cancer goes into remission, it most often returns years later to kill you. Chemotherapy/drugs/surgery doesn't always make the cancer permanently disappear, it just goes into "hiding" with a high probability of returning. And this happens more times than not.

If you have a pre-cancerous mole frozen off with liquid nitrogen, then the cancer is completely terminated before it has the chance to spread. Many years ago, my mother had a pre-cancerous growth (cervical cancer) frozen off, and it probably saved her life. But it is sometimes very difficult to catch cancers in their pre-stages.

With proper and extensive treatment, most cancers can be eliminated with a fairly high chance of survival. But it's things like pancreatic, brain, and bone cancer which are extremely deadly, and of which very few people survive.
And your point is what?
FishmanGeertz
#20
Jun2-11, 06:25 PM
P: 190
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
And your point is what?
If cancer goes into remission, probably 75% of the time it returns years later to kill you.
JaredJames
#21
Jun2-11, 06:27 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by FishmanGeertz View Post
If cancer goes into remission, probably 75% of the time it returns years later to kill you.
Once again, what is your point (and perhaps some stats to back that up)?

What does that have to do with your OP or previous posts?
Ryan_m_b
#22
Jun3-11, 03:54 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,459
Here's some stats, not sure how reliable they are. In the UK 1 in 3 people will develop some form of cancer, however in the US that rate is 1 in 2.
Evo
#23
Jun3-11, 09:59 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,522
But it's not as dire as it sounds, I'm trying to get better stats to explain that 1 in 2 means that by age 80 that might be possible. It certainly doesn't apply to all ages. For example people in their mid 20's do not have a 1 in 2 chance of being diagnosed with cancer.
Ryan_m_b
#24
Jun3-11, 10:01 AM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,459
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
But it's not as dire as it sounds, I'm trying to get better stats to explain that 1 in 2 means that by age 80 that might be possible. It certainly doesn't apply to all ages. For example people in their mid 20's do not have a 1 in 2 chance of being diagnosed with cancer.
Oh yeah of course, its 1/2 over an entire life time. One of the links I gave has risk per cancer per age group I think
bobze
#25
Jun3-11, 10:44 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
The people arguing that this number is increasing, need to take into consideration our ability to diagnose--Especially cancers that are "non-deadly".

For instance, basal cell carcinoma is the most common skin cancer (something around 90% of all skin cancer cases). And in the US, skin cancers are the most common form of cancer.

BCC isn't aggressive though and hardly ever metastasizes. So you don't get a lot of people dying from it, but it still contributes to those statistics.

Its interesting if you ever take a gross anatomy course or get the privilege to dissect a human body. Almost all of the elderly cadavers have some form of cancer you'll find during the course of the dissection---Even if that wasn't their cause of death. The cadaver I got to use had 2 large fibrous pleural tumors, though the cause of death was septicemia from bed sores acquired after a fall.

If you live long enough, cancer is inevitable.

Past reproductive age, selection can only have extremely minor impacts (if at all, though you could make the argument for a few things). As such, we (and the rest of life on earth) never evolved to "defend" against cancer for ever. That defense is only necessary prior to reproductive age.
DaveC426913
#26
Jun3-11, 01:31 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Frankly, I think the increasing rate of cancer is meaningless without considering our increasing lifespan.

We are curing lots of things, and so living longer. IMO, many cancers are kind of the final 'I can't hold it together any longer' of the body. We are bound to run up against a hard threshold of the body's ability to keep running as we systematically cure everything else.
turbo
#27
Jun3-11, 01:58 PM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Detection rates and increased awareness could indeed swell the numbers of reported cancer cases. One of my neighbors is going through recurrent bouts of skin-cancer, and another is being treated for prostate cancer. Neither lives farther than 3 homes from me.

I lost a dear friend (a ridiculously funny woman who used to perform in a Chicago improv group) to glioblastoma a few years ago, then lost another dear friend (biker-buddy) to cancer that riddled his body and spread to his liver. He was a Vietnam vet, and had been exposed to Agent Orange. Well over a decade back, I lost probably my closest friend at the time (former boss - head of the Technical department at my mill) to cancer. He came down with testicular cancer that went into remission with aggressive chemo, then re-emerged years later and went to his lungs and brain. My brother-in-law came down with adrenal cancer about a year after being sprayed with herbicide from the air while he was fishing. His uncle was sprayed, too, and died sooner - of cancer. Jim managed to survive the treatments, and he lived to see all his 4 kids graduate HS, but he never lived to see any of his grandchildren. The cancer re-emerged and went to his lungs and brain, at a minimum.

I wonder how many of these cases would have been accurately diagnosed even 50 years ago...
Pengwuino
#28
Jun3-11, 05:48 PM
PF Gold
Pengwuino's Avatar
P: 7,120
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Unfortunately, because my mom worked as a nurse, and my dad as a hospital chaplain, I know of too many people under 30 who had cancer, and too many who died.
I'm just looking at the statistics based on age. For every person you see die at a young age, I'm sure there are a lot of people who have died at a much older age. This is the discrepancy I'm pointing out in saying people back in the day rarely died of cancer without noting that people had a much shorter life expectancy.
bobze
#29
Jun3-11, 10:28 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
Quote Quote by turbo-1 View Post
Detection rates and increased awareness could indeed swell the numbers of reported cancer cases. One of my neighbors is going through recurrent bouts of skin-cancer, and another is being treated for prostate cancer. Neither lives farther than 3 homes from me.

I lost a dear friend (a ridiculously funny woman who used to perform in a Chicago improv group) to glioblastoma a few years ago, then lost another dear friend (biker-buddy) to cancer that riddled his body and spread to his liver. He was a Vietnam vet, and had been exposed to Agent Orange. Well over a decade back, I lost probably my closest friend at the time (former boss - head of the Technical department at my mill) to cancer. He came down with testicular cancer that went into remission with aggressive chemo, then re-emerged years later and went to his lungs and brain. My brother-in-law came down with adrenal cancer about a year after being sprayed with herbicide from the air while he was fishing. His uncle was sprayed, too, and died sooner - of cancer. Jim managed to survive the treatments, and he lived to see all his 4 kids graduate HS, but he never lived to see any of his grandchildren. The cancer re-emerged and went to his lungs and brain, at a minimum.

I wonder how many of these cases would have been accurately diagnosed even 50 years ago...

Probably not many. Cell biology 50 years ago was still in diapers. Genetics, which is what cancer is really about, hadn't been weened yet! And autopsies were pretty much done by gross visualization--With little cell biology involved.

Well okay, I guess 50 years ago was the 60's--So it wasn't that bad and all. Many feels like it was 2000 just yesterday Turn it back another decade and my appraisal is more accurate.
bobze
#30
Jun3-11, 10:43 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 645
Quote Quote by Pengwuino View Post
I'm just looking at the statistics based on age. For every person you see die at a young age, I'm sure there are a lot of people who have died at a much older age. This is the discrepancy I'm pointing out in saying people back in the day rarely died of cancer without noting that people had a much shorter life expectancy.
Right and again, we have better diagnostic capabilities as well.

Consider the most common childhood cancer in industrialized nations; leukemias and lymphomas. While scientists and physicians in the later part of the 19th century were able to recognize a trend in patients presenting with L/L symptoms had excessive white blood cells--No one really understood it.

Does anyone think that lots of children who died from L/L in the 19th or early 20th century were correctly marked down for cause of death?

Also you have to look at, with cancer in the young, the fact that the mortality rate of infectious diseases has dived so low for many of them. Whooping cough, Scarlet fever, diphtheria, TB etc, had extremely high mortality rates at various points in history. So sure, little bobby might have been on his way to have NHL at the age of 19, but the Scarlet got him first!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Disorganized Cancer - the first form of reproductive life? Medical Sciences 5
How avoid Diabetes, liver cancer, colon cancer and Kidney failure. Biology 7