Abacus

What would be considered a cure for cancer?

Don't the vast majority of people who receive modern cancer treatments, such as chemotherapy or radiation, survive? Why are these not considered cures?

Or would a cure be some sort of treatment that has a 99.9% success rate? Or something that inhibits cancer from occuring in the first place?

BrotherMan

I am the most amateur of laymen, so keep that in mind.

When I think of the phrase 'cure for cancer', I think about what they've done with small pox. In other words, pretty much eliminated it from human population.

WWSD

An actual "cure" would be something that results in no reoccurance of the disease in anyone in the treatet population, IMO.

THe problem with cancer is that it sometimes just goes into remission, and seems gone, until a few years later when it re-emerges, tougher thn before, and is harer to treat.

Thisis due to the modern treatments. Chemo is something like a hand grenade, you toss it in knowing that it will kill a lot of cancer cells, but also a lot of healthy cells. The problem that arises is that some cancers mutate quite rapidly, and that mutation rate leads to selection in a patient undergoing treamtment. If some hardy cancer cells survive the treatment, they will still be there afterwards, and a new population of cancer cells, a new more aggressive population mind you, will pop back up some time later.

Mad Kally

WWSD: The problem that arises is that some cancers mutate quite rapidly

Cancer cells have quit following the rules of inhibition.

WWSD

Its because they drink so much...

Boro Nut

TB is a pretty effective cure for lung cancer.

doghouse

Realize that cancer is not a specific disease (like smallpox is, for example) but rather a group of over 100 different diseases that share some common features. In general, the tem cure means the symptoms of the disease are gone and don’t return for the life of the patient. For many types of cancer, “cure” means the symptoms are gone and haven’t returned for 5 years. This is because if these types for cancer are going to recur, they usually do so within 5 years.

And you’re right -- many types of cancer are cured with appropriate treatment. For example, localized cancer such as certain skin cancers can be cured with surgery. Thirty years ago, patients with acute lymphocytic leukemia, a common childhood cancer, almost always died within several months. Now, over 50% are cured. But there are a number of cancers that are still very difficult to cure. One example is metastatic lung cancer, the most common cause of cancer death in the US.

Phanes

Doghouse is right; there are many different types of cancer. Chemotherapy, surgery, cryotherapy, etc. are pretty effective at controlling some types of cancer and in some cases, but not nearly as well as we would like.

Here are some interesting estimates about some cancers for the year of 2002, if you're interested:

Breast cancer - 203,000 new cases/year; 40,000 deaths/year
Leukemia - 30,000 new; 21,000 deaths
Lung + Bronchus - 169,000 new; 154,000 deaths
Lymphoma - 60,000 new; 25,000 deaths
Oral + Pharynx - 28,000 new; 7,000 deaths
Ovary - 23,000 new; 13,000 deaths
Pancreas - 30,000 new; 29,000 deaths
Prostate - 189,000 new; 30,000 deaths
Skin - 1,000,000+ new; 9,000 deaths
Urinary/bladder - 56,000 new; 12,000 deaths

Prostate and breast cancer are the most common types, but lung and bronchus cancers kill the most people every year (5 year survival rate is only 15%).

Mad Kally

Cancer that has metastasized to the lungs is considered a secondary site. The primary cancer started somewhere else.

gilly54

Although I work in the radiation therapy field, and we are improving the cure rates with many cancers, I think THE cure for cancer will arise from genetic or stem cell research.