Cancer Death Rate Depends on Geography

Despite a huge amount of funding and research, regional and individual differences in cancer trends make it a hard disease to wipe out

By Mike May

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A Global Killer
The number of people who die from cancer varies greatly around the world, often because of differences in behaviour and healthcare.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Age-Old Problem
A dramatic change happens around the age of 20, when the main cancers being diagnosed in the United States start to shift from mainly leukaemia to predominantly digestive, prostate, lung and breast.

Money Matters
In 2013, the US National Institutes of Health spent US$2.6 billion on cancer research, and more than one-quarter of that went to breast cancer.

Points of Attack
With the exception of sub-Saharan Africa, lung cancer is one of the top three cancer killers in all regions. Breast, colorectal and prostate also feature prominently.

Deadly Discrepancy
Gaps between diagnoses and mortality are most prominent for breast and prostate cancer.

Rate Changes
Among other factors, public-health measures have influenced the number of US people being diagnosed with certain cancers.

Highs and Lows
Some cancers have much better prognoses than others. Breast and prostate cancer have benefited from improved treatments and early detection.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on May 28, 2014.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American