Everyone has access to the same drugs and same medical procedures. The question to ask is – why is there a difference between the USA and the rest of the world on cancer survival

According to the U.K.’s Office of National Statistics, the five-year relative survival rate for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer between 1993 and 1995 (and thus followed up to 1998 or 2000) was 59.8 percent, The National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database puts concurrent U.S. rates at 95.4 percent. As with the more recent figures, there is indeed a significant difference,

The USA and Japan have highest cancer survival rates

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=91106

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080716184419.htm

Averages are based on percentage of population and by different grading standards. It’s the same as calling us the biggest polluter when actually China and India are but, because their population is higher, they show less "carbon usage" per person! They same "research" probably puts us low in infant mortality rates also because, once again, we grade differently. But if you use as a source someone’s "evidence" who advocates for socialized medicine, I think it may come up a bit BIASED, don’t you?

Zosia Chustecka
Information from Industry

October 15, 2008 — New reports from EUROCARE suggest that cancer care in Europe is improving and that the gaps between countries are narrowing. However, comparisons with US statistics suggest that cancer survival in Europe is still lagging behind the United States.

One of the main messages from both reports is that in Europe, "for most cancers, survival has increased and between-country survival differences have decreased over time," notes an accompanying commentary by Mike Richards, CBE, from the United Kingdom’s Department of Health. However, the differences between countries are not trivial, and "many more lives could be saved if the outcomes of all countries were brought up to the standards of the best" (ie, Norway, Sweden, and Finland), he comments. The United Kingdom in particular comes out badly in the tables, showing cancer survival rates that are among the worst in Europe. The findings suggest that the national cancer plan for England, which began in 2000, is not working, a second editorial comments.

Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe

One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2006.

Survival was significantly higher in the United States for all solid tumors. The greatest differences were seen in the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56.2% in Europe vs 65.5% in the United States), breast (79.0% vs 90.1%), and prostate cancer (77.5% vs 99.3%), and this "probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis," they comment.

Further analysis of these figures shows that, in the case of men, more than half of the difference in survival between Europe and United States can be attributed to prostate cancer. When prostate cancer is excluded, the survival rates decreased to 38.1% in Europe and 46.9% in the United States. For women, the survival rate of 62.9% for all cancers in the United States is comparable to that seen in the wealthiest European countries (eg, 61.7% in Sweden, 59.7% in Europe), and the slightly higher survival in the United States was largely due to better survival for colorectal and breast cancer, the authors comment.

Lancet Oncol. Published online December 21, 2008.

It really is not a fair comparison. Europe is made up by several countries, we are just one. We have a standard of care which is the same regardless of what state you are in. you cannot expect the standard to be the same in each country the makes up Europe.

The story states it may be due to differences in the timeliness of diagnosis, which may be true. It would be easy enough to figure out, just compare the data by stage.

http://www.medicine.org/profiles/blogs/us-vs-british-health-care

using sources is fun And easy !

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/05/26/britain-says-health-service-is-splendid-thank-you-very-much/

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/fox-news-universal-health-care-breeds-terrorists/

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1566393/the_united_states_vs_foreign_health.html?cat=5

———————-
okay, after doing some looking I see that your using HALF-Truths.
Eastern European Countries do bring the % down !
but.. I think you should use countries like Sweden, Norway, France, Canada, Japan, Etc. when your going to compare.

I don’t think a U.S. Nationalized Health Care System would end up being like one in the countries of Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine or Romania.
————————-
Here it is !! ( I found it for You )
The CONCORD study

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/BreastCancer/10155

It shows what you would expect !!
The U.S. scores high for cancer survival WITH countries like Sweden, Japan, Finland, and Australia
(unless your Black !)
Countries that scored lower – Brazil & Slovakia
Country that totally sucked – Algeria

However, the outlook isn’t always this good. The chief determinant of survival (with almost all cancers) is the degree that the cancer has spread by the time it is discovered.

Cancers that are confined to the prostate gland (i.e. haven’t spread) have an excellent 5-year survival rate of upwards of 80%. That is, 80% of people in this situation are alive five years later. Of those who do make it this far, by far the majority live much longer (most dying with it, not from it, as above), since the cancer will have been successfully removed.

Once the cancer spreads out to the surrounding local structures, the 5 year survival rate drops to about 60%. And once the cancer metastasises to distant areas, this figure falls again to around 40%. (By comparison, once lung cancers are detected, the patient often has an average of 6 months to live.)

Having the cancer run in your family doesn’t generally change these figures – it will still depend on the spread. Recommendations vary, but many health authorities recommend that men get screened (preferably rectal exam plus blood [PSA] test) every 2 years from 50 to 70 years. If you have a family history, you should probably start a little earlier, from about 40.

Hope this helps! Let me know if you require further information.

It is useful to break up prostate cancer victims into three main groups:

1) If the cancer has not extended beyond the prostate organ itself, the prognosis is best. Members of this group are most likely to find themselves in the high survival class.

2) If the cancer has extended beyond the prostate (e.g. to closely surrounding tissues, or near lymph nodes) there is still a very good likelihood of cure, defined as a 10 year survival rate.

3) If the cancer has extended (metastisized) to far site organs or tissues, i.e. bone, liver, lung or brain; – there is currently treatment on a palliative basis only. There is no known cure at this stage of the disease. If progressed this far, secondary bone cancer is the usual site of incidence.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to be tested as early as possible. The medical community recommends all men test annually after age 50, and that all men who have a relative with a history of prostate cancer test starting annually at age 40.
I SAY testing should start no later than age 30. The PSA blood test is not expensive, so if your medical insurance doesn’t cover, YOU should be happy to pay up.

If a man tests later in life, and finds out then that he has prostate cancer, or worse that the cancer is of the aggressive form or has simply started out as the more usual slow prostate cancer, but has now has enough time to metastisize, – well then than man has been very unlucky indeed; and in my humble opinion has not been well served by the medical community’s advice to test after 50 years of age.

I hope this answer has been of some help to you and your friend. Best regards,

It is useful to break up prostate cancer victims into three main groups:

1) If the cancer has not extended beyond the prostate organ itself, the prognosis is best. Members of this group are most likely to find themselves in the high survival class.

2) If the cancer has extended beyond the prostate (e.g. to closely surrounding tissues, or near lymph nodes) there is still a very good likelihood of cure, defined as a 10 year survival rate.

3) If the cancer has extended (metastisized) to far site organs or tissues, i.e. bone, liver, lung or brain; – there is currently treatment on a palliative basis only. There is no known cure at this stage of the disease. If progressed this far, secondary bone cancer is the usual site of incidence.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to be tested as early as possible. The medical community recommends all men test annually after age 50, and that all men who have a relative with a history of prostate cancer test starting annually at age 40.
I SAY testing should start no later than age 30. The PSA blood test is not expensive, so if your medical insurance doesn’t cover, YOU should be happy to pay up.

If a man tests later in life, and finds out then that he has prostate cancer, or worse that the cancer is of the aggressive form or has simply started out as the more usual slow prostate cancer, but has now has enough time to metastisize, – well then than man has been very unlucky indeed; and in my humble opinion has not been well served by the medical community’s advice to test after 50 years of age.

I hope this answer has been of some help to you and your friend. Best regards,

Duration : 0:3:14

http://www.ehow.com/how_5275952_estimate-prostate-cancer-cure-odds.html