Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Luc 3590 days ago
Strange, from what I read (including interviews with oncologists) cancer treatment is massively improving, with new treatments available and many fundamental advances in the pipeline. The future is looking bright, with cancer becoming a manageable chronic illness in the next decades.
2 comments

An oncologist gave a friend of mine the ridiculous opinion that there would be a cure for cancer within 5 years. That was 6 years ago.

I say ridiculous because medicine is awash with similar predictions, the vast majority of which have never come true, or materialise far far later than anticipated.

The future does indeed look bright... from the very specific perspective of the researchers. Unfortunately if you are someone actually living with lung cancer or pancreatic cancer, for example, that bright future suddenly looks a lot murkier.

Fortunately my friend remains in remission, while I remain flabbergasted at the irresponsibility of that oncologist.

"Cure for cancer" or "cure for that particular cancer"? First one sounds bizarre (cancer is a set of diseases that are generally similar, but very different in specifics), second is essentially already true for some kinds of cancer (e.g. testicular cancer in males).
You're giving me anecdotal information that spans over 20-30 years? Yeah, I'm optimistic that by 2050, we'll be much better off. In the meantime, 7-10 million worldwide will die every year from cancer. We're racing to get self-driving cars to save a lot fewer people.
Its more than anecdotal information. In the last few years 11 new treatments have been approved for stage III and IV cancers that are immune-mediated, which includes melanoma, one of the fastest growing (in terms of incidence) as well as most aggressive cancers.

But the real truth is that cancer isn't a single disease. Treatments move slowly because its a host of different diseases which all exhibit the same symptoms of unrestrained growth and cellular immortality. So yeah, a lot of people are going to die of a lot of different diseases. "Curing cancer" isn't going to happen, because "cancer" isn't one single (or even a few) things to cure.

'cancer isn't a single disease ". That's covered in the video, and it well-known by everyone? The immunotherapy drugs are in the video too. There were certainly a few successes but it sounds like we have a bit of work. It's one of the cancer moonshot projects:

http://www.cancermoonshot2020.org

Do you have to survival rates for the various cancers. That's the benchmark, right?

I don't know if I think survival rates are the best metric for judging progress here. The ones I'm most familiar with are melanoma's, but those are also a factor of many things besides treatment options. The only thing I can think of that its a good metric for is 'people not dying'.

I also don't know if 'cancer isn't a single disease' IS well known by everyone. In this crowd perhaps, but certainly not the population at-large.

> I'm optimistic that by 2050, we'll be much better off. In the meantime, 7-10 million worldwide will die every year from cancer

That's sort of how progress and improvements work, they benefit those that come later.

> We're racing to get self-driving cars to save a lot fewer people

And those people working on cars are probably don't have the skills or drive to deal with medical research. That not everyone on the planet is working on what you believe they should be means nothing.

No one said people should switch jobs. You are filling in the wrong blanks. Thinking outside the box doesn't come easy for you?
And what other meaning does "We're racing to get self-driving cars to save a lot fewer people" have in this context?
Many people are excited that self-driving cars could potentially save a million lives a year, which will be an incredible achievement.

We need that sort of excitement and effort for cancer research. Eventually 40% of Americans will get cancer, for example:

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics