Subscription Center
Feb 18, 2009 09:05 AM | 8
Three years ago, the American Cancer Society (ACS) broke some exciting news: for the first time in decades, U.S. cancer deaths fell. The trend continued the following year. But new research today shows that the milestone has been a mixed bag for one segment of the population, African-Americans. They’re also dying less of cancer—in some cases, their gains are coming at a faster pace than for whites—but the disease still kills them more often.
About 150,000 cancers will be diagnosed in blacks this year, and more than 63,000 African Americans will die of the disease, says a new report from the ACS. Some more numbers: In 1990, 399 per 100,000 African-American men died of cancer; that number fell to 297 per 100,000 by 2005. But white men started off dying less often of cancer than black men did, and also showed an improvement: 272 per 100,000 in 1990, and 223 per 100,000 in 2005.
Among women in 1990, the cancer death rate was 205 per 100,000 for African Americans, a number that fell to 180 by 2005. That compares to 1990 figures of 173 per 100,000 for white women and 2005 figures of 155 per 100,000. (It takes awhile to crunch the numbers, so the big news we heard in 2006 and 2007 about cancer deaths declining reflected trends in 2003 and 2004, respectively. Accordingly, today’s report reflects numbers from 2005.)
In other words, the gap between African-Americans and Caucasians is narrowing, but not as much for women as for men, by the percentages.
As would be expected, differences in smoking patterns may be responsible for the figures. Some of the reason black men are catching up to white men is a decrease in lung cancer deaths as African-American men have stopped smoking in greater proportions than white men, says Ahmedin Jemal, strategic director for cancer occurrence at the ACS. Similarly, lung cancer death rates are increasing among black women, the report notes, which could explain why black women aren’t seeing the gains that white women are. (Women picked up cigarettes about 20 years later than men, so any decrease in women's lung cancer deaths will lag behind men's, Jemal says.) A potential bright spot for the future: black children today have lower smoking rates than any other racial or ethnic group, suggesting that they may be better protected against cancer in years to come, says Harold Freeman, president and founder of the Ralph Lauren Center for Cancer Care and Prevention in New York City.
Another potential explanation for the figures: Breast and colon cancers are still deadlier for black women than they are for white women.
Blacks also have a worse five-year survival rate than whites for all cancers—57 percent compared to 66 percent, according to the report. A number of factors may be responsible: African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of the disease, when treatment is less effective, says Jemal. They are less likely to get recommended treatments, such as surgery for lung cancer, he says. In some cases, such as breast cancer, biological differences in the tumor may play a role, according to the report.
Other contributors may involve lifestyle, including diets high in salt and fat, says Freeman. The rest involve money and insurance coverage: African Americans are disproportionately poor, uninsured or on Medicaid, and people on Medicaid don’t do any better against cancer than people without insurance, Freeman says.
But survival rates reflect the time since a person is diagnosed with cancer; they don’t necessarily mean his lifespan is any longer overall. So would a narrowing of the five-year survival between blacks and whites really matter?
It would, Freeman says. Over the last half century, life expectancy has increased for blacks and whites, but has remained lower for African Americans. Right now, he says, white women's life expectancy is 80 years, compared to 73 years for black women. Among men, whites can expect to live 73 years, versus 67 years for their black counterparts.
Given that heart disease and cancer — the top two causes of death in the U.S.—share common origins in cigarette smoking, and that the death rate in blacks due to both cancer and cardiovascular disease is higher than it is in whites, "if the disproportionate cancer burden in blacks were eliminated, some of the racial survival difference would be eliminated," Freeman says. "Measures which diminish heart disease and cancer for all races would likely have an appreciable effect in increasing longevity—an increase which would be disproportional for blacks."
Image by aloshbennett via Flickr
Tags:
smoking,
heart disease,
cancer
More News Blog:
Next: Zerhouni, former NIH chief, now at Gates Foundation
Previous: MRSA on the wane--In the intensive-care unit, anyway
See what we're tweeting about
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
8 Comments
Add Commentwhat´s the point of putting this in terms of race if it's clear that the issue is education and financial capability? Obsession with race issues? Racism? Or the more common lack of ethics on using eye-catching deceiving article titles? This is not science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Blacks still dying more of cancer than whites"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoor english- Try:
More Blacks dying of cancer than Whites
Sounds better!
I am surprised that people still haven't figured it out.... Doctors and pharmaceutical companies make their living from your pain and suffering and who better to make a living from than from the Afero-American population whom no one cares about. The bark from the Pacific Ewe Tree can cure over a dozen forms of cancer. I bet your doctor will never tell you that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm to the person why race was put out & then had the nerve to say it's due to their education, & finance duhh go to any inner-city African American area then go to a European area & see the differance most education in this country is based on Tax profits from the locale people well if the locale people can't find a well or basic paying job then it will effect the schooling of their children. Unlike the rest of the Western world we're the only country that educate all OUR children this way. But the people who make up most of this country & have most of the power are European like me & lets all be honest we really don't care or think African Americans are REAL Americans & in some part of this country some people don't even think they are HUMANS then you wander why they don't live as long & again being honest, they have a way harder time in this country than I did growing up. I just read on cnn & the ap about how even well off African American who's income is up to 20-50,000 more than a white person will get a higher mortgage rate with worse fees & you see how hard it would be to get ahead I would dare any of my European bothers & sisters to live a year as an African or Hispanic & I bet you'll be dying to be white again this is a damn shame all out major issues come down to race but we close our eyes to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould this have anything to do with Vitamin D deficiency? Because black skin has more pigment, it blocks more sunlight...lower D levels would follow. D is proving to protect against several forms of cancer, esp. colon cancer. I've heard that blacks also have a higher rate of lactose intolerance: if true, that would block still another source of Vitamin D...dairy products. I hope SciAm will feature more research on this possible relationship.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto JamesDavis: Ok then, using YOUR logic, you have proven yourself wrong... the article says that blacks receive less medical care than whites from these evil-doing doctors, and therefore it is the pain & suffering of white folk they are making a living from, not blacks. However, you have a good point about the pharmaceutical companies, i.e. the fact that they do a lot of their early stage testing of new drugs in 3rd world countries. But regarding your comment "The bark from the Pacific Ewe Tree can cure over a dozen forms of cancer. I bet your doctor will never tell you that" you are absolutely wrong. The chemotherapy drug Taxol is derived from the bark of the Yew tree, and millions of cancer patients have been receiving it for close to 20 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople who are treated for cancer are more likely to recover from it. People who have health insurance are more likely to get treated. People who make a decent wage are more likely to be able to afford health insurance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBottom line: Those who can't afford to get well will die more frequently than those who can.
Then again, the general point you were making about pharma companies is true. Although Taxol exists thanks to compounds discovered in Yew bark, Taxol itself is entirely synthetic, because drug companies can't patent natural plant extracts. So even if the raw plant extracts are more effective, there are no huge sums of money to be made down that route, and no one to fund the research to prove their effectiveness. An earlier poster mentioned the connection between low levels of Vitamin D and cancer, and Vitamin D is extremely inexpensive. What we need is government funded research for these unpatentable natural treatments, because no one else has the money and the power to compete against Big Pharma. And ironically, I believe it will be a black man (Barack Obama) who will take action on this problem, if anyone can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this