Follow this blog:
RSS

The best news you’ll read all week about cancer

By | September 25, 2012, 6:43 AM PDT

This week the British cancer research institution Cancer Research UK published new data on projected cancer rates, reports BBC News. Their numbers forecast a 17 percent fall in cancer rates by 2030. The BBC’s James Gallagher explains:

About 170 UK deaths per 100,000 of population were from cancer in 2010, and this figure is predicted to fall to 142 out of every 100,000. Some of the biggest killers - lung, breast, bowel, and prostate cancer - are part of the trend. The biggest fall is projected to be in ovarian cancer, with death rates dropping by 43%.

Here’s those numbers in graph form:

The research group credits the predicted drop in cancer rates (in the UK) to:

The United States currently spends around $70,000 per cancer patient (pdf), or $90 billion per year in 2008. If cancers in the U.S. fell at a similar rate to what’s projected in the UK, that would save the U.S. healthcare system (and patients) over $15 billion, which could help counteract the $750 billion the industry reportedly wastes annually.

[via BBC News]

Graph: Research UK

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Audrey Quinn

About Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn
Contributing Editor

Audrey Quinn is a multimedia science journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. She has corresponded for PRI's The World, Radiolab, Deutsche Welle's Living Planet, and a number of NPR affiliate stations. She also produces and hosts a podcast for the Mind Science Foundation. Previously, she performed neuroscience research at the University of Washington Autism Center and the Seattle VA Hospital.

Follow her on Twitter.

Audrey Quinn

Audrey Quinn

Audrey does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
3
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
How can Smart Planet get it so mixed up?
Actually, this story is totally illogical, misleading - if not completely erroneous. While these cancer rates will decline, it will be from the reduction in the one factor that causes all of them - inflammation. Diet - especially the intake of imbalanced fats (omega 3/6 ratios ) reducing arachidonic acid cascade bi-product levels, excess sugar (processed simple carbohydrates) - the resulting obesity, and yes obviously smoking - all produce the inflammation that cause the bulk of these cancers - and diabetes. It won't be the screening programs that reduce the cancer rates - screening has no impact on cancer development - just survival rates once you have it.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
28th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
What savings?
Add to that comment that the cost spent per person doesn't necessary decrease due to higher survival rates. In fact, logically, if those people don't die they will surely incur additional health costs in the future.
There is no savings in survival. There is savings in prevention.
Posted by Havokmon
28th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Mixing apples and oranges
You're talking about two different things. You say "cancer rates" but the charts are all about death rates from cancer, which is not the same thing.
Posted by Greenknight_z
29th Sep
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!