We've been fighting the war on cancer for many decades. It seems that we frequently hear about all of the "success" that we are having. Headlines touting the declining death rates from cancer are common.
And yet, cancer is on track to become the leading cause of death in America.
How much of cancer rate reporting is influenced by a desire to maintain robust funding for ongoing research, and pharmacologic treatments? Without a sense of optimism, enthusiasm for funding would dry up.
Is it correct to equate an improvement in 2 year survival with a decline in the overall death rate even though the cancer in question may still be terminal?
How much does cancer treatment, both radiation therapy and chemotherapy, along with the frequent high dose radiation imaging often used to follow the results of treatment, end up actually increasing the risk of new cancers forming, or the old cancer relapsing?
There many things done in the name of cancer treatment that are the result of protocol, more than evidence-based results. Initiating treatment without definitive evidence of results is common in medicine. However, in some cases the dogmatic approach of cancer treatment can deprive patients of being offered alternative approaches.