Reuters Photojournalism
Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography. See more | Photo caption
Sponsored Links
U.S. cancer death rates continue drop: report
WASHINGTON |
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. cancer death rates are falling, with big decreases in major killers such as colon and lung cancer, the American Cancer Society said on Wednesday.
The improvement was due a decline in smoking, better treatment and earlier detection, it said.
The group predicted 1,529,560 new cancer cases in the United States in 2010 and 569,490 deaths.
Death rates for all cancer types fell by 2 percent a year from 2001 to 2006 among men and 1.5 percent per year from 2002 to 2006 in women, it said.
New cases of colorectal cancer fell 3 percent a year in men and 2.2 percent a year for women from 1998 to 2006, while lung cancer rates have fallen in men by 1.8 percent each year since 1991 and finally started leveling off among women.
"We will build on our progress in the fight against cancer through laws and policies that increase access to cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment services, and with a sustained federal investment in research designed to find breakthroughs in the prevention and treatment of the most deadly forms of cancer," John Seffrin, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society, said in a statement.
The full report is available here
FALLING MORTALITY RATE
The drops in mortality rates have meant 767,000 people who would have died prematurely from cancer over the past 20 years did not, the organization said.
The overall U.S. death rate from cancer in 2007 was 178.4 per 100,000 people, a 1.3 percent drop from 2006, when the rate was 180.7 per 100,000.
"In that time, mortality rates have decreased by 21 percent among men and by 12 percent among women, due primarily to declines in smoking, better treatments, and earlier detection of cancer," the group said in a statement.
Lung cancer remains the No. 1 cancer killer of both men and women in the United States. Breast cancer comes in No. 2 for women, prostate cancer is the second most common killer of men, and colon cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death for both sexes.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said at least 10,000 people and possibly far more die in the United States each year because they have not been screened for colon or breast cancer.
The cancer society projects that 222,520 Americans will get lung cancer in 2010 and 157,300 will die. It says 102,900 will get colon cancer and 51,370 will die from it; 209,060 will get breast cancer and 40,230 will die; and 217,730 will get prostate cancer and 32,050 will die from it.
(Editing by David Storey)
- Tweet this
- Link this
- Share this
- Digg this
- Reprints
If you do not believe this then check cancer rates at the equator vs Scandanavia.
Sooner or later even the drug companies will have to admit this…
Friday, June 18, 2010
12:01 a.m. EDT
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jun2010/nci-18.htm
Vitamin D Status is Not Associated with Risk for Less Common Cancers
Despite hopes that higher blood levels of vitamin D might reduce cancer risk, a large study finds no protective effect against non-Hodgkin lymphoma or cancer of the endometrium, esophagus, stomach, kidney, ovary, or pancreas. In this study, carried out by researchers from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and many other research institutions, data based on blood samples originally drawn for 10 individual studies were combined to investigate whether people with high levels of vitamin D were less likely to develop these rarer cancers. Details of these analyses appear as a set of papers in the June 18, 2010, online issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, and in print in the July 2010 issue.
“We did not see lower cancer risk in persons with high vitamin D blood concentrations compared to normal concentrations for any of these cancers,” said Demetrius Albanes, M.D., NCI, one of the study investigators. “And, at the other end of the vitamin D spectrum, we did not see higher cancer risk for participants with low levels.”
As part of a collaborative effort of the NCI Cohort Consortium, investigators from the Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers examined vitamin D levels in blood that had been collected from over 12,000 men and women participating in one of the studies. Some of those individuals went on to develop cancer. Vitamin D concentrations were measured using 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), which is the major form of this vitamin in the bloodstream.
Participants were followed for the development of cancer for up to 33 years, depending on the study. Investigators then compared cancer rates in participants whose levels of vitamin D in stored blood were high (above 75 nmol/L, or nanomoles per liter) or low (less than 25 nmol/L) with rates in participants whose levels of vitamin D were within the normal range (50 to 75 nmol/L).
For the small number of participants with vitamin D levels greater than 100 nmol/L, investigators observed elevated risk of pancreatic cancer, but not for the other cancers in these studies. They recommended further research to clarify this relationship.
Vitamin D is made naturally by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight; it can also be obtained from a few foods in which it occurs naturally, from fortified foods, and from nutritional supplements. Vitamin D is essential for healthy bones, calcium absorption, and immune function.
Researchers and clinicians have looked to the possibility that vitamin D might be used for cancer prevention. Some evidence indicates that higher levels of vitamin D are associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, though the evidence is inconsistent.
Through the Vitamin D Pooling Project, researchers had access to a geographically and demographically diverse group of men and women, including participants from the United States, Finland, and China.
In this collection of groups of study participants, the proportion of the study population that was deficient in vitamin D varied from 3 percent to 36 percent, depending on geographical latitude, season during which the blood was collected, race, and other factors. The investigators had a wealth of other information on participants, including smoking history, lifestyle, and diet. As in other studies, individuals with higher 25(OH)D levels were more likely to be male, lean, and physically active. Those with higher levels also reported greater intake of multivitamins, calcium supplements, and foods rich in vitamin D.
“In this pooled analysis of cohort data, vitamin D was not associated with lower risk for these less common cancers, despite well-established benefits for bone health,” concluded Albanes.
Many people in the United States and around the world have low concentrations of 25(OH)D. The current recommended daily intake of vitamin D to maintain bone health and normal calcium metabolism, according to the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, ranges from 200 IU (international units) to 600 IU, depending on age, with the highest dose recommendations being for the elderly. In addition, the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that older adults, people with dark skin, and those exposed to insufficient sunlight consume extra vitamin D from vitamin D-fortified foods and/or supplements. Since there are very few foods which naturally contain vitamin D (fatty fish, fish liver oil, and eggs), most dietary vitamin D comes from fortified foods such as milk, juice, yogurt, bread and breakfast cereals.
NCI’s Cohort Consortium (http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/Consortia/cohort.html) was established in 2000 to foster large collaborative studies, such as the Vitamin D Pooling Project, to investigate the causes of cancer, including interactions between genes, between genes and the environment, and between multiple environmental factors.
The Vitamin D Pooling Project realizes a major goal and advantage of the Cohort Consortium — the study of rare cancer outcomes that no one cohort alone can examine effectively. The Project’s Steering Committee representing the 10 cohorts included researchers from NCI; the American Cancer Society; Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, and the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; Mercy Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore; New York University School of Medicine, New York City; University of Hawaii, Honolulu; and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville.
NCI leads the National Cancer Program and the NIH effort to dramatically reduce the burden of cancer and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families, through research into prevention and cancer biology, the development of new interventions, and the training and mentoring of new researchers. For more information about cancer, please visit the NCI Web site at http://www.cancer.gov or call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation’s Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit http://www.nih.gov.
Patient’s D levels were measured one time and done so mostly in summer.
One time in a study period of up to 33 years?
Vitamin D level designated as “high” above 75 nmol/L?
Says who- a drug company?
125 nmol/L is normal- a healthy level.
The study was based on false assumptions and did not measure D levels on a regular basis (at least twice a year- for the duration- up to 33 years if necessary).
You have to look at the details before posting such things- as should the “researchers”.
Sorry but the NIH “study” has already been discredited by everyone who knows anything about it.
It is an unqualified embrassment.
It is studies like these that make it very diffcult to push forward. Once discredited they still linger.
The NIH and FDA are supporting such things because their overlords- the drug companies and AMA, (for which all hope to be employed by one day- much more money there than some govnmnt. job) blundered horribly by telling everyone to stay out of the sun.
Vitamin D deficiency is the link to practically everything and the insiders at the AMA and drug companies know it. They will be humilated by the reality and thus must hide the truth.
Follow Reuters