| It seems to us that we are living in a cancer epidemic | | | | increases was that at the end of the period, 2003, |
| in the United States. Both of us have lost parents to | | | | many more people were dying from cancer than died |
| cancer, and we have been losing more and more | | | | in 1975. |
| relatives and friends to cancer. Based on our own | | | | Over the period of analysis (1975-2003), a total of 33 |
| sad experience, we were driven to carry out | | | | million Americans were afflicted by cancer. Even this |
| research on the impacts of cancer in the U.S. over | | | | is an underestimate, due to delayed reporting of |
| the period 1975 to 2003. This study assesses the U.S. | | | | cancer cases, and the actual number would be |
| cancer program, as guided by the National Cancer | | | | considerably higher. During the same period, a total of |
| Institute, by examining three basic measures of that | | | | 15 million Americans lost their lives to cancer. The |
| program: 1) the cancer incidence rate; 2) the cancer | | | | ratio between these two numbers provides an |
| mortality rate; and 3) the probability of getting | | | | approximation of those who die in relation to those |
| cancer for an American male or female in their | | | | afflicted by cancer - at 45 percent. Almost half of |
| lifetime. The basic data series were obtained from | | | | those who get cancer will eventually die from it. |
| NCI's SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End | | | | Probability of Getting Cancer |
| Results) program. The result of our research was a | | | | With regard to one's chances of getting cancer, as |
| paper (52 pages), and this is a synopsis of that | | | | of 2002, American males faced a staggering |
| paper. The paper in its entirety is available on the | | | | probability that is close to 50 percent of contracting |
| web: | | | | cancer in their lifetime, while American females were |
| The findings of our research on the impacts of | | | | facing a 42 percent probability of getting cancer in |
| cancer on Americans are grim and shocking. Since | | | | their lifetime. Moreover, these probabilities have been |
| 1975, the effects of cancer on people has been | | | | getting worse over time. By contrast, the probability |
| continuously and steadily worsening - with the | | | | in 1975-1977 for an American man or woman of |
| following dismal outcomes of the three measures: | | | | contracting cancer was 34 percent. This was already |
| Cancer Incidence | | | | a high number - which became even higher over time. |
| The reported age-adjusted cancer incidence rate of | | | | Furthermore, the probabilities - particularly in the |
| Americans getting cancer in 2003 was 460 people | | | | 1990s and 2000s - are underestimates since cancer |
| per 100,000. This was in stark contrast to 400 people | | | | probabilities are calculated from cancer incidence rates |
| per 100,000 in 1975. This reveals a significant | | | | and these rates are underestimates as a result of |
| worsening of cancer incidence in the U.S. over time. | | | | reporting delays. |
| In actual numbers, this means that 1.3 million | | | | Cancer in the News |
| Americans got cancer in 2003 as compared to | | | | Despite data shortcomings that result in significant |
| 864,540 in 1975. This bleak situation is even worse | | | | underestimates of cancer statistics, the existing |
| because of the delays in the reporting of cancer | | | | cancer data show a dismal situation with respect to |
| cases (Clegg et.al., 2002). As a result of these delays, | | | | cancer prevention and cancer treatment. The grim |
| the reported cancer incidence in 2003 is an | | | | statistics are typically not depicted in the news media. |
| underestimate of the correct incidence, which we | | | | Over the years, the media has focused on news |
| have calculated to be 494 per 100,000 people getting | | | | portraying small numbers of deaths, from diseases |
| cancer; and the total number of Americans getting | | | | like the bird flu, and have ignored the horrendous fact |
| cancer now increases to 1.4 million people. | | | | that millions of Americans with cancer have died, and |
| Over the period of analysis, 1975-2003, the reported | | | | continue to die, from cancer. In addition, they have |
| cancer incidence rate increased at an average annual | | | | focused on short periods of time that give misleading |
| rate of 0.5 percent. This positive growth rate means | | | | results. |
| that the number of people diagnosed with cancer | | | | Conclusions and Recommendations |
| every year was increasing faster than the population | | | | If the cancer program worked, positive benefits to |
| of the country. Moreover, this rate will be higher with | | | | Americans would have been shown by a decrease in |
| the adjusted incidence numbers for the delayed | | | | the cancer incidence rate and the mortality rate, |
| reporting of cancer cases (particularly for 1993 to | | | | from their levels in 1975. In addition, the probability of |
| 2003). In addition, the total number of Americans | | | | getting cancer in one's lifetime would have decreased. |
| affected by cancer increased every year (1975-2003) | | | | That did not happen; on the contrary, the numbers |
| by 1.6 percent (also an underestimate). | | | | increased across all measures. Even a rudimentary |
| Cancer Mortality | | | | evaluation of the costs of the NCI compared to the |
| During each of the 25 years since 1975 - until 2001 - | | | | benefits obtained by the American people would |
| more Americans died from cancer, per 100,000, than | | | | conclude that it has been a horribly inefficient use of |
| in 1975. Also, many more Americans died from cancer | | | | national funds. |
| in 2003 - 553,244 - than in 1975 - 430,002. | | | | A single main recommendation arises from the big |
| Furthermore, we surmise that the number of cancer | | | | and continuing failure of the NCI cancer program: The |
| mortality rates reported by SEER/NCI are | | | | National Cancer Institute to be drastically restructured |
| underestimates due to the likely misses of cancer | | | | and its programs to be significantly changed, in order |
| death cases when they are marked in the | | | | to develop and make effective programs of |
| IMMEDIATE CAUSE section of the death certificate | | | | prevention and programs of treatment of cancer. |
| rather than the UNDERLYING CAUSE section; this | | | | The American people have been paying too high a |
| shortcoming can be a substantial one. | | | | price - with their lives - for an extremely misguided |
| It is a very disturbing fact that the number of | | | | and ineffective cancer program. |
| Americans who have been losing their lives to cancer, | | | | References |
| in the 1990s and the 2000s - on a daily basis - | | | | Clegg, L.X., et.al., "Impact of Reporting Delay and |
| reached the count of a World Trade Center tower | | | | Reporting Error on Cancer Incidence Rates and |
| at 1,500 people. This number translates into 63 | | | | Trends." Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Vol. |
| Americans dying from cancer every hour of the day | | | | 94, No. 20, Oct. 16, 2002, pp. 1537-1545. |
| - which means 1 American dies from cancer every | | | | National Cancer Institute (NCI). Surveillance, |
| minute. These are indeed grim statistics, attributable | | | | Epidemiology and End Results (SEER), 1975-2002. |
| to the failure of the cancer program. | | | | United States Bureau of the Census. Statistical |
| The total number of people in the U.S. who lost their | | | | Abstract of the United States, 2006; section on |
| lives to cancer also increased annually at a rate of 0.9 | | | | Population. |
| percent (1975-2003). The dismal result of these | | | | |