adssx
#68
Rectal not renal 
For rectal cancers it’s 5 to 10%. For ALL cancers it’s about 5% (TBC).
2 Likes
KarlT
#69
A reflection of the idea that there will not be a single cure for cancer.
4 Likes
I think it is possible that there will be a protocol with a number of interventions that resolve more than 15% of cancers. (possibly the majority)
2 Likes
adssx
#71
Yes. They’ll take your cancer cells and do a specific treatment just for that with 100% efficacy. Some friends are working on that.
My only question is: how long to reach 95% 5y survival rate? Today we’re at 71% (across all cancers) but we only gain 1 point each year. So prediction markets have 75% in 2029 and 95% in 2051: When will the average five-year survival rate of all cancers exceed 95%?
Hopefully markets are wrong and there will be some kind of breakthrough accelerating progress…
4 Likes
I still believe in hyaluronic acid.
Hyaluronic acid
How might hyaluronic acid prevent/treat cancer? Any studies?
Edit: maybe in reference to naked mole rats
KarlT
#74
I would prefer they pursue cure rates rather than 5 year survival. I know that’s the standard but not really helpful when someone dies at year 6.
2 Likes
It is a reference to naked mole rats indeed.
1 Like
adssx
#76
We’ve already discussed this in another thread: Cure is always a % after some years. Humans die anyway. The 5y survival rate gives you the 10y as well. You just multiply. So 95% over 5y means about 90% survival rate over 10y (0.95x0.95). Of course we want ideally 100% survival rate over 20+ years but if we reach >95% survival rate over 5y I think cancer will be considered cured. Even more so if the rate is higher in healthy people diagnosed early (let’s say 99%).
KarlT
#77
Medicine doesn’t work by simple math. Keeping someone alive 5 years in no way guarantees a similar rate of survival for another 5 years.
2 Likes
Agree, even in a healthy person, the probability of survival over the next 5 years is generally better than the 5 years after that.
However, you have to draw the line somewhere. 5 years seems like a reasonable timeframe for cancer studies given the high mortality rate. I would be surprised if it skews treatments to have a shorter effective duration, e.g. it works for 3 or 4 years so the 5 year survival looks good, but then year 6 and 7 everyone dies; that scenario seems unlikely.
My father-in-law had one of the deadliest forms of cancer, pancreatic. With today’s treatments, he survived just over 4 years which is amazing. 20 years ago, he’d be lucky to survive 1 year.
Cancer treatment has come a long way already.
6 Likes
adssx
#80
You’re totally wrong @KarlT: the 10y survival rate is just below the 5y one, so my rule of thumb (10y-survival = square of 5y-survival) is actually very conservative:
You can see that if you survive past 5y you’re very likely to make it to year 10:
Source: Cancer survival statistics for all cancers combined | Cancer Research UK
Another source: Clinical Outcomes of 849 Laryngeal Cancers Treated in the Past 40 Years: Are We Succeeding? 2013
Of course, there are huge variations among cancer types and stages. But the point stands:
- The 5-year survival rate is a great KPI (that’s why it’s the most used one!).
- If we reach a 5y survival rate >95%, everyone will consider cancer to be cured. Problem solved.
There’s actually one cancer with a survival rate of 95%: testicular cancer. And all sources say “Testicular cancer is curable.” Even though some people do die from it.
6 Likes
KarlT
#81
This is what proves you wrong. You said that the 5 yr rate was replicated the second 5 years. That’s not true. If 5 year survival is 60%, and 10 year is 50% when your math says 10 year should be 36%.
And this statement is so painfully wrong:
“You can see that if you survive past 5y you’re very likely to make it to year 10”.
2 Likes
adssx
#82
Exactly. That’s why I wrote that my rule of thumb was conservative. Whereas you claimed the opposite.
Have you checked the charts?
KarlT
#83
You need to experience more death so you understand the impact of bad statistics.
1 Like
adssx
#84
So that’s how you admit you were wrong? Of course, every single death is a terrible loss, but the debate was about the relevance of the 5-year survival rate: it is relevant.
3 Likes
“The Risk of Cancer Fades as We Get Older, And We May Finally Know Why”
Odd, as this goes against my preconceived notion that I was more likely to get cancer as I got older.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08285-0
4 Likes
“Coffee and Tea Linked to Lower Cancer Risk in Groundbreaking Study”
If coffee does anything, and more is better, I am in good shape. It is hard to contemplate how many thousands of gallons I have consumed since I started drinking coffee.
I started when I was 18 years old and in the Navy. I have always drunk it black because the sugar cubes by the coffee urn were always stained, and the creamer was a can of curdled condensed milk
https://scitechdaily.com/coffee-and-tea-linked-to-lower-cancer-risk-in-groundbreaking-study/
10 Likes
KarlT
#87
Why would I admit I was wrong when you’re wrong? If only I could block you, life would be better.
