Ugly Cancers

[onejayhawk]

Steve Jobs death brings out something that has annoyed me for some time, the disproportionate money spent on breast cancer.

Breast cancer is by far the most diagnosed cancer among women, which says more for awareness than incidence. Despite the fact that it is diagnoesed more than twice as often as lung cancer, breast cancer claims only half as many lives. It is the most survivable forms of cancer. Despite this, breast cancer gets twice as much research money as lung cancer. Breast cancer gets over 25% of all research funding, male, female or both.

Steve Jobs had pancreatic cancer. In contrast, this is the most deadly of the common forms. Jobs had access tot he very best medical care in the world, but it did not matter. Despite the fact that pancreatic cancer strikes both sexes, and kills as may people as breast cancer, it receives less than 1/6 the research money.

http://www.larimer.org/compass/cancermortalitylb_h_ph_charts.htm

http://fundedresearch.cancer.gov/search/funded;jsessionid=CED1453B13955E61CA66189A6C203467?action=full&fy=PUB2010&type=site

J

[billbuckner]

sex sells?

[onejayhawk]

sex sells?

And pink is pretty.

Seriously, if that was the case, why does breast cancer get 5 times the funding that ovarian/uteran cancer does?

J

[billbuckner]

And pink is pretty.

Seriously, if that was the case, why does breast cancer get 5 times the funding that ovarian/uteran cancer does?

J

Would you rather see, lick, and touch a breast or a uterus?

[billbuckner]

Would you rather see, lick, and touch a breast or a uterus?

btw, there is no wrong answer here

[Pauly]

if they cure breast cancer, doesnt that at least give some researcher insight into defeating pancreatic cancer?

[Erik]

I think lung cancer doesn't get as much funding as it should because of the perception that some of the victims brought it on themselves.

[B-Fly]

if they cure breast cancer, doesnt that at least give some researcher insight into defeating pancreatic cancer?

There's certainly going to be some overlap as we see what works and what doesn't, but according to the American Cancer Society's website:

Different types of cancer can behave very differently. For example, lung cancer and breast cancer are very different diseases. They grow at different rates and respond to different treatments. That is why people with cancer need treatment that is aimed at their particular kind of cancer.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerBasics/what-is-cancer

[Kevin Seitzer]

if they cure breast cancer, doesnt that at least give some researcher insight into defeating pancreatic cancer?

What B-Fly said, but in general, the answer is no, and that's why it's been much more difficult to make progress against cancer than we had hoped a couple decades ago. There's no one treatment that's effective against them all because different types of cancer behave very differently.

It's kinda like making progress against viruses. There may be some research which helps in the progress against many different viruses, but most of the time, you have to fight one specific virus with a very different approach than you use for another type of virus.

[revo]

doesn't most of the funding for cancer research come from private organizations and foundations? If so, it's a pretty simple answer then: more people are affected by the most prevalent cancers, such as breast cancer and prostate cancer, and thus donate to organizations to stop them. In addition, those foundations/organizations also do a great job marketing themselves, like Susan G. Komen and the American Lung Association.

The Susan G. Komen Foundation has donated $300,000,000 to research projects in the last three years alone. According to the site you listed, that would be more than most of the other cancer research dollars combined.

[chancellor]

I'm with revo here - much of the money for breast cancer research comes from private sources, and I'm all for finding a cure for ANY kind of cancer. Plus, while breast cancer and pancreatic cancer do result in a similar fatality rate, the amount of debilitiating damage and surgeries required for breast cancer, combined with the family impacts of surgery and subsequent chemo and/or radiation being much greater for breast cancer, I'm all for the additional monies spent to slay this demon.