Breast cancer death rates decreased by 39 percent since 1989

October 14, 2017 5:55 PM

Washington Post: "Breast cancer death rates increased by 0.4 percent per year from 1975 to 1989, according to the study. After that, mortality rates decreased rapidly, for a 39 percent drop overall through 2015. The report, the latest to document a long-term reduction in breast-cancer mortality, attributed the declines to both improvements in treatments and to early detection by mammography."
posted by jazzbaby (7 comments total)

Interesting article, I wonder how these numbers compare to global numbers? Positive message overall about the improving survival rates but the racial and regional differences are a bit hair-raising.

The differences between mortality rates of black and white women are alarming. Some of it can be explained by black women more commonly getting the triple negative form of breast cancer (more aggressive, less treatment options). I was aware that triple negative breast cancer was more common among black women but the actual numbers still surprised me (black 24/100000 vs. white 12/100000). Regional differences in mortality rates (21-34/100000 for black women and 18-25/100000 for white women) are huge.

I recommend the original article, it's information heavy but very readable.
posted by severiina at 11:15 AM on October 15, 2017 [2 favorites]

Thank God for all the patients who benefited from improved treatments, and thanks to the nurses and doctors and researchers on the front lines.

I pray that the idelogues attacking American health care don't undo all this amazing progress, but instead extend it to other cancers.
posted by wenestvedt at 5:00 PM on October 15, 2017

The WaPo article also suggests that two "not yet fully understood" factors in the differences between mortality rates of black and white women include insurance and employment status.

It is fantastic that 322,600 lives have been saved by improved treatments and early detection. IMO, many more lives could have been saved (and many others could still be saved) if we had a single payer healthcare system/"medicare for all" that was available to every American.
posted by jazzbaby at 7:25 PM on October 15, 2017

I was aware that triple negative breast cancer was more common among black women but the actual numbers still surprised me (black 24/100000 vs. white 12/100000). Regional differences in mortality rates (21-34/100000 for black women and 18-25/100000 for white women) are huge.

What would the overall cause of this be? Can someone with a better knowledge of this help me out?
posted by karmachameleon at 9:29 PM on October 15, 2017

He said the gap reflects complicated social, economic and biological factors that are not yet fully understood, including insurance and employment status. In addition, black women are twice as likely as white women to develop so-called triple negative breast cancer, which can be harder to treat, the report noted.

Triple negative cancer is the hardest to treat, but I think the WaPo article does a disservice to the other part of the equation by emphasizing this factor. The truth is that cancer is expensive, both in dollars and time. Even early stage cancer is a long, expensive slog to treat. Black women are less likely to have the resources to go to the doctor when they first notice a problem and to follow through with months of surgery and its recovery, radiation (usually given daily for at least a month), and chemotherapy and infusions of targeted drugs, which can drag on for up to a year. There are a million other small costs as well that add up - I had the initial mammogram which diagnosed my cancer at Duke University Hospital, where I had to pay for parking.

The total billed to my insurance company for my year of active treatment was $692,000. Treatments are better, and I'm one of the very fortunate ones whose type of cancer directly benefits from the new drugs developed since 1989. We have a long way to go, though, in making this standard of care accessible to everyone.
posted by something something at 6:31 AM on October 16, 2017 [2 favorites]

And yet the prevalence of breast cancer has increased from 105.1 per 100k in 1975 to 130.6 in 2014. Ie 24%.
posted by Hobbacocka at 6:38 AM on October 16, 2017

Even early stage cancer is a long, expensive slog to treat. Black women are less likely to have the resources to go to the doctor when they first notice a problem and to follow through with months of surgery and its recovery, radiation (usually given daily for at least a month), and chemotherapy and infusions of targeted drugs, which can drag on for up to a year. There are a million other small costs as well that add up - I had the initial mammogram which diagnosed my cancer at Duke University Hospital, where I had to pay for parking.

Interesting. Well some of the links on here say that mammograms have gone up (59-69% of women over 40 have had one in the past 2 years). Also the Affordable Care Act mandates insurances to pay for mammograms now so that probably helped.

There were a couple links to studies on the site - one says that black women are getting mammograms at the same rate as white women, but there is a lag (10 to 20 days, depending on whether the person came in with symptoms) in time to diagnosis. The other says it is more dependent on the care at the individual health center. So yeah, it seems to be a matter of time to diagnosis, plus treatment. Plus a biological factor.
posted by karmachameleon at 10:50 AM on October 16, 2017