Years of intense research to develop treatments against the revolutionary cancer have largely failed to make a dent in the cancer death rate the United States, according to a new report. The study, published in tomorrow New England Journal of Medicine , shows that despite the war against cancer, cancer death rates were 6% higher in 1994 than in 1970. Progress Recent against the disease came largely from improved prevention and detection rather than treatment, the authors claim, and therefore, they call for a change of priorities in the nation's cancer research program .
The study, led by John C. Bailar III, an epidemiologist at the University of Chicago, and his colleague from Chicago, biostatistician Heather Gornik, analyzed the number of deaths from 1970 to 1994 of the National Cancer Center for Health Statistics. They determined the mortality rate adjusted for age for each type of cancer by year, race and sex. Mortality rates were adjusted to compensate for changes in the overall size of the population and changes in the age distribution during the 25 year study period.
As in previous studies, Bailar and Gornik found that overall rates of cancer death increased steadily until the early 190s, but decreased by 1% from 1991 to 1994. Last November, a team from the University of Alabama, Birmingham, reported a 3.1% decline from 190 to 1995. However, Bailar notes that the overall cancer mortality rate continues today to be higher than in 1970. the figures also revealed that the prevalence of certain types of cancer is changing. For example, the prevalence of melanoma and brain and prostate cancers increases, while stomach cancer is declining. Meanwhile, better methods of detection and prevention are the cause of a fall in the colon and rectum cancer mortality rates. At the same time, the authors note that some treatments have been remarkably successful. There have been marked improvements, for example, cancer survival rates, such as Hodgkin's disease, which tends to affect children and young adults. But because the number of these cancers is low, the overall effect is minimal.
The results point to the fact that "much of the research that went into the improvement of cancer treatments does not seem to bear fruit," said Clark Heath, an epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society in Atlanta. Bailar and Gornik therefore propose that more research funding is devoted to methods of prevention and detection, even, if necessary, to the detriment of seeking treatment. Currently, for every $ 5 spent on research of treatment, $ 1 goes to prevention, Bailar said. More money for research is needed to study topics such as cancer effects of food choices and carcinogenic effects of water and air pollution, Bailar said.
"We do not address the treatment of cancer," said Bailar. These treatments almost heal half of all cancer patients and "can do a lot for those who can not be cured," in under help them live longer and more comfortably. "But the 50% cure rate is not enough, because he failed to bring the mortality rate down by cancer, and provides a strong argument for a change orientation of research. "not all agree with this assessment, however." No one is satisfied with a mortality rate of 50%, "says Samuel Broder, former director of the National cancer Institute. But he adds that it would be a "grave mistake of being too pessimistic" about the future prospects for treatment.
0 Komentar