Cancer Survival Rates -- US versus Europe

[mrplunkey]

I've always found it funny that people in your country seem to strive for it.

We had various forum messages on it. What works in one country, may not work in another because the culture / mentality is different.

I don't see the amount of abuse that you would expect with free healthcare.

If it went to the States, then I'm fearful that the system would collapse in a manner of months with the no-personal responsibility group.

Oh don't get me started!

That's the even bigger issue about nationalizing health care in the US. We have the lowest rates of personal responsibility. We're the fattest and the most drug-abusing. We're the nation that paces in front of the microwave waiting on our 2-minute burrito. Fast food isn't fast enough for us and we don't understand why the pill takes an entire 20 minutes to kick-in. Be damned if we'll eat less and exercise too -- there's got to be a better way to get our blood sugar and cholesterol under 400 each. Didn't they just come out with a single pill for that?

Even if something did work in another country (albeit "work" is hard to gauge), it doesn't mean it would work here.

 

[Tatyana]

Where are you getting your statistics from?

There was a study done, however it used cancer survival rates from the 1990s, and cancer survival rates
have changed since then.

BBC NEWS | Health | Huge gap in world cancer survival

Page last updated at 23:13 GMT, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 00:13 UK

There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows.

The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.

The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours - although the data is from the 1990s since when survival rates have risen.

Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.

Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment.

The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

There were also large regional variations within the UK, which were linked to differences in access to care and ability of patients to navigate the local health services. Both are directly linked to deprivation.

A Department of Health spokesman said the report covered patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1994.

"Since that time, cancer survival rates in England have been steadily improving for but we accept that there is further work to do to reduce the gap between us and the rest of northern and western Europe and America."

Algeria, the only African country involved, came bottom in all types of cancer.

Survival

It meant an American man was four times more likely to survive prostate cancer than an Algerian, while a Japanese man was six times more likely to survive colon cancer.

Poland, Slovenia, Brazil and Estonia had survival rates half as good as the best performers.

The results closely mirrored the amount each country was spending on health during the period.

While the US led the way with more than 13% of gross domestic product spent on health, Canada, Australia and the best-performing European nations were all spending about 9% to 10%.

The UK was spending just over 7% but that figure has now been increased following record rises in the NHS budget to bring it much closer to the likes of France and Germany.

Algeria was spending around 4%.

The importance of money was further illustrated by an ethnic breakdown of outcomes in the US.

White Americans, who are on the whole wealthier and therefore more able to afford the insurance which underpins the US system, were up to 14% more likely than others to survive cancer.

Professor Coleman said some of the differences could be attributed to variations in "access to diagnostic and treatment services".

"This, of course, is associated with the amount of investment in technology such as CT scanners."

Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, added: "The report is the first major study to compare cancer survival across five continents and has highlighted the stark differences in survival between poor and wealthy countries."

 

[mrplunkey]

Where are you getting your statistics from?

There was a study done, however it used cancer survival rates from the 1990s, and cancer survival rates
have changed since then.

BBC NEWS | Health | Huge gap in world cancer survival

Page last updated at 23:13 GMT, Wednesday, 16 July 2008 00:13 UK

There is a huge variation in cancer survival rates across the world, a global study shows.

The US, Australia, Canada, France and Japan had the highest five-year survival rates, while Algeria had the worst, Lancet Oncology reported.

The UK fared pretty poorly, trailing most of its western European neighbours - although the data is from the 1990s since when survival rates have risen.

Spending on health care was a major factor, the study of 31 countries said.

Researchers said higher spending often meant quicker access to tests and treatment.

The research was carried out by more than 100 scientists across the world led by Professor Michel Coleman, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

It involved analysing data on more than two million cancer patients who were diagnosed and treated during the 1990s.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.

Japan came out best for male colon and rectal cancers, at 63% and 58.2% respectively, while France fared best for women with those cancers at 60.1% and 63.9%.

The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

There were also large regional variations within the UK, which were linked to differences in access to care and ability of patients to navigate the local health services. Both are directly linked to deprivation.

A Department of Health spokesman said the report covered patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1994.

"Since that time, cancer survival rates in England have been steadily improving for but we accept that there is further work to do to reduce the gap between us and the rest of northern and western Europe and America."

Algeria, the only African country involved, came bottom in all types of cancer.

Survival

It meant an American man was four times more likely to survive prostate cancer than an Algerian, while a Japanese man was six times more likely to survive colon cancer.

Poland, Slovenia, Brazil and Estonia had survival rates half as good as the best performers.

The results closely mirrored the amount each country was spending on health during the period.

While the US led the way with more than 13% of gross domestic product spent on health, Canada, Australia and the best-performing European nations were all spending about 9% to 10%.

The UK was spending just over 7% but that figure has now been increased following record rises in the NHS budget to bring it much closer to the likes of France and Germany.

Algeria was spending around 4%.

The importance of money was further illustrated by an ethnic breakdown of outcomes in the US.

White Americans, who are on the whole wealthier and therefore more able to afford the insurance which underpins the US system, were up to 14% more likely than others to survive cancer.

Professor Coleman said some of the differences could be attributed to variations in "access to diagnostic and treatment services".

"This, of course, is associated with the amount of investment in technology such as CT scanners."

Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, added: "The report is the first major study to compare cancer survival across five continents and has highlighted the stark differences in survival between poor and wealthy countries."

The landmark study with 1.9M patients across many countries was done in the 1990's.

And yes, it's true the gaps have closed somewhat but there has also been a corresponding increase in medical travel and private insurance being purchased outside nationalized plans. Who's to say that isn't contributing to the improvement?

Also, keep in mind that slight differentials in outcome can completely kill a therapeutic treatment. Remember the Vioxx debacle? That drug increased the rate of adverse cardiac events from 0.78% to 1.5% -- yeah, a whopping 0.72% increase.

So let's say the cancer survivability differential is cut in half now. Prostate cancer survivability may now have a 20% differential instead of a 40% differential. We're talking over 25x the differential that obliterated Vioxx and triggered hundreds of thousands (if not more) lawsuits. Merck has set aside almost $6B to cover its US-based lawsuits. If a 0.72% increase is worth $6B, what's a differential 25+x that worth?

And remember too that many (if not most) Vioxx patients didn't die, they just had heart attacks. In the prostate cancer survivability numbers, the patients died (by definition).

So bottom line: Sure differentials may be improving. But if they are still anywhere near the statistically significant level, they shouldn't pass US scrutiny over clinical efficacy.

 

[DJ_UFO]

There is a key element that everybody has forgotten in this thread.

We are The United States of America, and we believe health care is not a right. It is a privilege.

Every time somebody argue about the cost of health care per person in any country, you forget that our system is founded upon the individual. You work your way up and get health care because you deserve it, and you shop around the best option. That's how the free market works. That's capitalism. By giving the individual the power to chose, let the hospitals and companies grow and improve themselves.

We have problems with our system, yes. Yet, is the best in the world. Like I said before, we need to fix it, but NOT CHANGE IT.

Bottom line, any type of universal health care converts the health system into a right, and that right attempts directly against Freedom of the individual. NOBODY can force you to pay for someone else health. NOBODY is responsible for someone else health. Just like your own success, your health is personal; is your own privilege, your own achievement. That is call Freedom. Something that the rest of the world lost/forgot a long time ago.

The only rights every human has, is the right to live, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those rights are established by our existence. Since the day of the creation. All humans are created equal. Based on those principles our system works. Same opportunities and possibilities for everybody, ALWAYS making sure, that the responsibility is INDIVIDUAL. Freedom is non-negotiable. Universal health care, IS NOT an option.

 

[EnderJE]

There is a key element that everybody has forgotten in this thread.

We are The United States of America, and we believe health care is not a right. It is a privilege.

Every time somebody argue about the cost of health care per person in any country, you forget that our system is founded upon the individual. You work your way up and get health care because you deserve it, and you shop around the best option. That's how the free market works. That's capitalism. By giving the individual the power to chose, let the hospitals and companies grow and improve themselves.

We have problems with our system, yes. Yet, is the best in the world. Like I said before, we need to fix it, but NOT CHANGE IT.

Same opportunities and possibilities for everybody, ALWAYS making sure, that the responsibility is INDIVIDUAL. Freedom is non-negotiable. Universal health care, IS NOT an option.

One would argue that the right to live also provides for health care to live. Not the plastic surgery or the elective surgery that happens, but some baseline level care.

However, as previously stated, the lack of any personal responsibility or moderation in your country would bankrupt the system faster then you can say "cheese steak with extra lard".

It's not to say that yours is better then anyone else's (because we do not have a universal measurement for 'better'), but what works in some areas in the world would not work in all areas of the world.


The part in bold makes me laugh the loudest. The myth of Horatio Algers is alive and well. Are you really saying that everyone has an equal chance at anything? Have you forgotten that some people are more equal then others?

As well, for someone who loves their freedoms, you sure traded alot of it away with the old regimes and again with the new one.

 

[mrplunkey]

One would argue that the right to live also provides for health care to live. Not the plastic surgery or the elective surgery that happens, but some baseline level care.

That same argument could be extended to elective procedures. Doesn't the right to live also include freedom from morbid obesity? I guess bariatric surgery should be included too. And then again, shouldn't life be free of the disfiguring stretched, excess skin? Aren't we taking mental health into consideration here? If we're going to include health as a basic right, it should include mental and physical well-being.

And the same could be said for shelter. Shouldn't everyone be given shelter? And education too? Why should one person receive less "life" than others? And what is life without the arts? Doesn't that mean access to culture and beauty is a right too? I can't believe we'd deny someone access to the symphony or opera simply because they can't afford a ticket. This argument is a slippery slope that ends with every American being entitled to a big screen TV and a least a few six packs of beer per day.

Our framers used the term "life" to mean no one diminished your life -- not that someone else owed you a quality of life. The irony is once you decide "life" includes a standard of living that others owe you, you actually start diminishing someone else's life -- the life of the person expected to pay for it.

 

[javaguru]

There is a key element that everybody has forgotten in this thread.

We are The United States of America, and we believe health care is not a right. It is a privilege.

Every time somebody argue about the cost of health care per person in any country, you forget that our system is founded upon the individual. You work your way up and get health care because you deserve it, and you shop around the best option. That's how the free market works. That's capitalism. By giving the individual the power to chose, let the hospitals and companies grow and improve themselves.

We have problems with our system, yes. Yet, is the best in the world. Like I said before, we need to fix it, but NOT CHANGE IT.

Bottom line, any type of universal health care converts the health system into a right, and that right attempts directly against Freedom of the individual. NOBODY can force you to pay for someone else health. NOBODY is responsible for someone else health. Just like your own success, your health is personal; is your own privilege, your own achievement. That is call Freedom. Something that the rest of the world lost/forgot a long time ago.

The only rights every human has, is the right to live, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Those rights are established by our existence. Since the day of the creation. All humans are created equal. Based on those principles our system works. Same opportunities and possibilities for everybody, ALWAYS making sure, that the responsibility is INDIVIDUAL. Freedom is non-negotiable. Universal health care, IS NOT an option.

Actually, health care is a right by federal law. Anyone must be treated...by federal law. The healthcare bill is about making health insurance a right.

 

[SpyWizard]

it actually comes down to 1 question..

if it can't be cured, why bother wasting resources on someone that will may in the best case scenario live 2-6 months longer, and during that time, the possible income potential in $0

 

[EnderJE]

it actually comes down to 1 question..

if it can't be cured, why bother wasting resources on someone that will may in the best case scenario live 2-6 months longer, and during that time, the possible income potential in $0

That's an interesting play on the question. Couldn't the sick be considered test cases for potential cures?

 

[WODIN]

Cancer Survival Rates Vary by Country

July 16, 2008 -- Where you live plays a role in cancer survival, according to a new study that shows the U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer. Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers.

"This is the first direct comparison of so many countries as far as I am aware," says Michel Coleman, MD, a professor of epidemiology and vital statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the study's lead author.
While Coleman and other epidemiologists have long known that cancer survival rates vary country by country, and even within a country, the study lends hard numbers to the fact. Still, there were surprises. "I think the surprises were that the range in global survival is really quite wide," Coleman tells WebMD.

"Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD.
Cancer Survival by Country

Coleman and colleagues drew on data from nearly 2 million cancer patients, ages 15 to 99, whose medical information was entered into 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries. The patients had been diagnosed with one of four cancers: breast, colon, rectum, or prostate cancers during the years 1990-1994. They were followed up to 1999, with the researchers comparing five-year survival rates.

The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports.

In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers.

The lowest cancer survival rates for all four cancers were found in Algeria.

"This is a very good way of presenting data worldwide, using the same method of analysis," says Ahmedin Jemal, PhD, strategic director for cancer occurrence for the American Cancer Society, who reviewed the study for WebMD.

The state-by-state differences in cancer survival rates do not surprise him, he says. "Previous studies have shown differences in treatment for breast cancer, for example, across states." Differences in screening have also been detected, he says, with the percentage of women getting regular mammograms, found to vary widely from state to state.

Coleman and Jemal hope the study results will motivate public health policy makers. "What is required here on a policy level is understanding why those differences occur and remedying those differences so the entire population can benefit from the improvement," Coleman says.

Within the U.S., Jemal says, he is hopeful the report will motivate cancer control program organizers at the state level. Policymakers in a state with lower cancer survival rates could consult with neighboring state policymakers with higher survival rates and adopt some of their programs, he says.

The study is published early online and in the August edition of The Lancet Oncology. Funding was provided by the CDC, the Department of Health in London, and Cancer Research UK in London.
Cancer Survival: A Closer Look at the U.S.

Survival rates varied among the 16 states and six metropolitan areas included in the study.

Idaho had the best survival rates for rectal cancer in men and Seattle was highest for rectal cancer in women. Patients in Seattle also had the best survival rates for prostate cancer. For all other cancers studied, patients in Hawaii had the highest survival rates.

Patients in New York City had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers except rectal cancer in both men and women. For those, patients in Wyoming had the lowest survival rate.

A racial gap in survival was evident, with white patients more likely than blacks to survive, especially breast cancer. "The comparison is confirmed right across the USA, in all 16 states," Coleman says of the racial gap.

For the study, the researchers estimated relative survival, adjusting for such factors as wide differences in death rates from country to country and for age.