Document gaX3JNyGjbgz678aym6D3jjZV

V& Z o ff 1226 THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE May 8, 1986 Vol SPECIAL ARTICLES Tat PROGRESS AGAINST CANCER? J ohn C. Bajlar III and E laine M. S mith Abstract We assessed the overall progress against cancer during the years 1950 to 1982. In the United States, these years were associated with increases in the number of deaths from cancer, in the crude cancer-related mortality rate, in the age-adjusted mortality rate, and in both the crude and the age-adjusted incidence rates, whereas reported survival rates (crude and relative) for cancer patients also increased. Jn our view, the best single measure of progress against cancer is change in lhe age-adjusled mortality rate associ ated with all cancers combined in lhe total population. A c cording lo this measure, we are losing lhe war against can cer, notwithstanding progress against several uncommon forms of the disease, improvements in palliation, and exten sion of the productive years of life. A shift in research em phasis, from research on treatment to research on preven tion, seems necessary if substantial progress against cancer is to be forthcoming. (N Engl J Med 1986; 314:1226-32.) } I *I 'H E primary purpose of this article is to assess the Which of these conflicting pictures of change, if X. overall progress against cancer during the years any, captures the "truth" about recent advances in the 1950 to 1982, the most recent year for which reliable control of cancer? More specifically, what yardstick iron data are available. During this time there was very rapid and extensive growth of private and governmen tal support of research on cancer, and toward the end should we use to measure the overall success of the long and intense eflort to control and eventually elimi nate these diseases? Interest in this matter is sharp 11 Inc* chir r of the period there was also substantial emphasis on ened by the recent announcement that the goal of the ft the effective delivery of research results to physicians, National Cancer Institute is a 50 percent reduction in patients, and the public. It is time for an open debate canccr-rclatcd mortality (on an age-adjusted basis) by to to take stock of past achievements and to consider the year 2000.3 To answer these questions, wc first dis what levels of funds should be invested in what kinds discuss the kinds of data that arc available and the at of future efTorts. \Vc offer some observations and intcr- methods used to reduce them to simple index fig cli ! pretations relevant to such a debate. ures.4,5 We then give our views on which measures arc is : In 1962, cancer was the recorded cause of death for most appropriate and what they indicate. the 278,562 Americans. In 1982, just 20 years later, 433,795 persons died of cancer -- a 56 percent in Mortality D ata av hit crease (Table 1). But the population was growing, and In the United States, nearly all national cancer- ua the proportions of persons in older age categories were related mortality data are derived from death certifi changing. Crude mortality rates, which adjust for cates submitted through local and state channels to Pc un population size, increased by 25 percent (from 151.0 to 188.8 .per 100,000) in this 20-ycar period, and ageadjusted mortality rates, which adjust for changes in the National Center for Health Statistics. The Death Registration Area has included the entire United States since 1933. Major changes since then include pr gr* age distributions as well as population size, increased five revisions of the standard system for coding causes ir< by only 8.7 percent (from 170.2 to 185.0 per 100,000). Mortality data do not tell the whole story. Wc might ask, not how many Americans die of cancer, but how many contract the disease. From 1973 to 1981 the crude incidence rate for all neoplasms combined rose by 13.0 percent, and the age-adjusted incidence rate by 8.5 percent (Table 1). Or, we might focus on neither incidence nor mortal ity, but on the long-term survival of patients who have had a diagnosis of cancer. Unadjusted five-year sur vival rates for patients with all forms of cancer com bined increased by 4.2 percent from 1973 to 1978 (from 38.5 to 40.1 percent),-while rates adjusted for "expected" mortality from all other causes of deal It of death, as well as continual improvement in medical procedures for antemortem diagnosis.G'H However, these changes have had less effect on the certification of deaths from cancer than on certification of deaths from other major causes. Mortality records can be used in many ways, each of which is best suited for specific purposes. Some times there is a need for information about changes in mortality that arc independent of demographic changes such as shifts in the age distribution of the population or shifts in place of residence (for geo graphically related cancers). "Adjusted" rates may be used to remove the effects of the variable or variables adjusted, so that other effects can be more easily de <h vc b\ m ac al cc tii sc T of cl at rose by 5.1 percent (from 46.8 to 49.2 percent). Fromthe Harvard School of Public Hcalih. Bmittn. and the UnivcrMiy of l<m-a Medical Ccmct. Iowa City. Addrcjs reprint requests to Dr. Hailar at the Depart ment of R ios tali*lies. Harvard School of Public Health. Boston. M A 02115. Supported in pan by runts (mm the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the M obil Corporation, and the University of Iowa Kcwarch foundation tected and measured.4'5 One common method of adjustment for age is the "direct" method, which is a simple weighted average of observed agc-spccific rates, with weights deter mined by some fixed "standard" population, such as the U.S. papulation of 1980. For tins paper all adjust ments were made by the direct method with reference I iv fr u r; P it ii Vl. 3U Nil. 19 I'ROCRKSS AGAINST C.ANCF.R? -- BAILAR AND SMITH V2T/ Table 1. Cancer in the United States: Selected M easures of Recent Changes.* MF.*!*!** Modality No. o f deaths Crude m e t Age-adjusted ratet Yi** m i 1WI2 TotL A viuct % CHtOCC Ch<ht.i;Y* 27H.562 433.795 151.0 tKK.K 170.2 185.1 ms m i 55.7 25.1 8.7 + 7.8 + 1.3 +0.4 plnicaucd, and recently began to rise again among white females; rose rapidly and steadily among nonwhitc males; and declined slightly and recently pla(caucd among nonwhite females. In all race and sex groups combined, there was a moderate increase in age-adjusted mortality. (The small discontinuity in 1957 is a result of a change in methods of classifying a cause of death on death certificates; more recent changes have had only a minor influence on canccrrclatcd mortality rates.0"8) Incidence Crude ratet Age-adjusted m e t 365.2 368.2 412.7 399.4 13.0 8.5 + 1.6 + 1.1 Site-Specific Mortality Data Although mortality from all forms of cancer com ms ms Five-year survival (S-)t Absolute survival rate Relative survival rate} 38.5 46.8 40.1 49.2 4.2 5.1 +0.8 + 1.0 bined provides the most important information, study of specific sites (Fig. 2) can both illuminate the over all changes and show why the sitc-spccific analyses alone may be misleading. To preserve comparability Source*: McKay el *1.,' the National Center for Health Sutiutc*.1 and unpublished data from the SEER P ntfnm . Naitooal Cancer Institute. across sites, Figure 2 shows rates of each cancer (in cluding the sex-specific cancers) relative to the total tR jici air per 100.000 population. Aye adjustment* air id the 19S0 U.S. population. Incidence data foe I9S I irctade to aica* not in the 1973 data; the base population telleci* thH fhanjee. population. Rates of breast cancer among women only and rates of prostatic cancer among men only arc ap {While population only, proximately twice the rates given in this graph. {Relative to survival of the U.S. white population with the aame aye distribution, There has been no apparent change in mortality from breast cancer among while or nonwhite women to the U.S. population of 1980. There has been recent since 1950. Rates among nonwhites (not shown) vary discussion about whether, in view of diagnostic errors about their mean more than the rates among whites, at older ages, age-adjusted mortality rates should in but this appears to be due to the effect of smaller clude the entire age span.9,10 Ours do, because cancer numbers of deaths and, hence, larger random vari is a common cause of death and because (contrary to ability. the situation with some other causes of death) the The sharp and continuing rise in deaths from lung available data do not suggest that net errors are so cancer (Fig. 2), nearly all from cigarette smoking, is high as to make the figures unreliable for overall eval now widely recognized as a medical, social, and po uation. Furthermore, changes in mortality rates for litical scandal. The increase was evident before 1950 persons in specific age categories may be useful for among while and nonwhite men, and it has been evi understanding causes of cancer, but cannot measure dent among white and nonwhite women since the late progress against cancer in all age groups. We believe that to study overall trends in cancer-related mortality (how they have changed in recent years and how they could change by the year 2000), the best single measure of mortality is the age- adjusted death rate associated with all cancers combined, supplement ed by age-adjusted rates and some times age-specific rates, for specific sex and broad racial categories. These measures remove the effect of changing population size and changing distribution according to age, sex, and race. Figure 1 shows age-adjusted mor tality rates for all forms of cancer from 1950 to 1982 in the entire pop ulation and according to sex and race, with age adjusted to the 1980 YEAR population. Cancer-related mortal ity, measured in this way, rose stead Figure 1. Mortality from All Malignant Neoplasms, 1950 through 1982, in the U.S. White Population and According to Race (While or Nonwhite) and Sex. ily among white males; fell slightly, Age was adjusted to the U.S. population ol 1980. 1228 THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE May 8, 1986 1960s. These changes in death rates from lung cancer This generally dismal picture obscures some strik have substantially affected mortality rates from ail ing successes, however. For example, age-adjusted cancers combined (Fig. 1). (Later on we will discuss mortality from all cancers combined has dropped no the effect of excluding lung and other cancers from the tably in patients under the age of 30, though such trends shown in Figure 2.) Data on nationwide mor deaths account for only about 1 to 2 percent of total tality trends with smokers and nonsmokers separated mortality from cancer.12,13 In older persons, mortality arc not available. from small-cell lung cancer and from, non-seminoma Mortality from cancer of the prostate (Fig. 2) has testicular cancer has also decreased (data not shown). not changed appreciably in the entire male popula tion, despite continual increases among nonwhiic men Incidence D ata since 1950. The possible measures for the incidence of cancer Mortality from stomach cancer (Fig. 2) has steadily are similar to those for mortality from the disease -- declined in all four race and sex groups. This decline counts, crude rates, and several kinds of adjusted reflects changes in incidence rather than belter meth rates, each of which may be limited to particular de ods of treatment, earlier diagnosis, or changes in defi mographic segments or particular forms of cancer.4,5 nition.6'" Mortality from cervical cancer (not shown) The incidence statistic that we chose for a measure has also declined dramatically as a result of wide of overall progress against cancer is the direct age- spread screening programs, improved standards of adjusted rate for all cancers combined (U.S. 1980 living, and a high rate of hysterectomy.11 standard), but supplemented by rates for certain nar Mortality from colorectal cancer (Fig. 2) lias been rower segments that illuminate specific problems. declining slowly and steadily for reasons not fully un Table 1showscanccrincidencedata from the SEER derstood but probably including better diagnostic pro (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) Pro cedures and improvements in treatment. gram, which was developed under the auspices of the These data, taken alone, provide no evidence that National Cancer Institute. One can compare these some 35 years of intense and growing efforts to im statistics with the mortality data in Table 1, but keep prove the treatment of cancer have had much overall ing in mind that most superficial skin cancers arc ex effect on the most fundamental measure of clinical cluded, that the SEER data arc for a nonrandom sam outcome -- death. Indeed, with respect to cancer as a ple of about 10 percent of the U.S. population from 10 whole we have slowly lost ground, as shown by the rise diverse geographic areas (4 states, 5 metropolitan in age-adjusted mortality rates in the entire popula areas, and Puerto Rico), that the series begins only in tion (Fig. 1). This is not to say that without these 1973 for 8 of 10 areas (the others were added in 1974 efforts at treatment the trends would have been the and 1975), and that the incidence data are subject to same, but overall, the effort to control cancer has substantial shifts in diagnosis and reporting during failed -- so far -- to attain its objectives. that time.14 Data on cancer incidence arc limited to the white population because the number of nonwhites in the SEER population was too small to provide reliable estimates of risks and be cause the distribution of nonwlmcs across specific racial categories was substantially different from that in the United States as a whole. Cancer incidence rales arc shown in Figure 3. Overall trends arc up ward among both white males and ------------- . . . . . . . ___________ CoiCHV'Kctiu'n white females, suggesting a failure to prevent or control new or current causes of cancer. * P is ilu r II ' 19*0 YEAR Figure 2. Mortality from Cancer ot Selected Sites. 1950 through 1982. in the Total U.S. Population, Age w as adjusted to the U.S. population ot 1980. Site-Specific Incidence Data The reported incidence rates for breast cancer slum- a distinct oneyear peak in 1974 and a slower rise in more recent years (Fig. 4). The reported incidence of cancer of the prostate (Fig. 4) has in creased slightly among white men and more sharply among nonwltile men (data not shown). Incidence rates lor lung cancer have been Iis- Vol. 3M N. 19 PROGRESS AGAINST CANCER? -- HAIIJVK AND SMITH 1229 VA " *0 *^*3 *14 if/1 *>4 f rr tf i| in tta *<+* Figure 3. incidence ol All Cancers, 1973 through 1981, According lo Sex, in the While Population of the S E E R Registry Area. Age was adjusted to the U.S. copulation of 1980. ing rapidly in white men and white women, largely in response to changes in tobacco smoking in recent decades. Again, wc see no reason for optimism about overall progress during recent years. There is no reason to think that, on the whole, cancer is becoming any less common. Survival D ata There are many divergent measures of case surviv al, just as there are for mortality and incidence. One can count a group of patients with cancer, then count the number who are alive at some specific time after diagnosis (e.g., 2, 5, or 10 years) and calculate the percentage surviving at that time. However, that mixes the lethal ciTecls of cancer with deaths from unrelated causes. One might instead compute the per centage who are alive and appear to be free of cancer at five years, or exclude those who have died of causes other than cancer during the period, or try to calculate the lifetime probability that someone with cancer will eventually die of it. A common device is to avoid diffi cult judgments about the presence of recurrent cancer or the cause of death and, instead, adjust for "expect edn survival estimated from rates in the general popu lation with the same age and sex distribution. The ratio of observed survival (cancer patients) to expect ed survival {general population), called the relative survival rate, is a commonly reported measure of case survival.'5 Any of these survival measures can be applied to cancer overall, to specific forms of cancer, or to specif ic demographic groups of patients. Again we have many measures, with none of them clearly best. The difficulty in interpreting survival rates after cancer is illustrated by recent congressional testimony stating that the United Slates is on the verge of attaining a five-year survival rate of 50 percent. News stories did not always make it clear that the computation of such a high rate required exclusion of ilie nonwhite popula tion and the use of relative rather than absolute sur vival rates.1,1 P roblems in Interpreting R ecent Incidence and S urvival Data Changing standards of diagnosis and medical care of patients with cancer may afTcct incidence and sur vival rates substantially more than they affect mortal ity rates. At one lime, a cancer was a cancer, and it could be assumed that a truly malignant neoplasm would eventually appear in hospital records (for treat ment) or in death records (if treatment was unsuccess ful or not attempted). The major exception, most forms of superficial skin cancer, could be excluded from the registry system by definition {the biologic behavior of superficial skin cancer is unlike that of other neoplasms because metastatic spread,.the main reason for death from cancer, is uncommon). Other neoplasms lacking metastatic behavior used to be con sidered infrequent and were not regarded as a source of serious bias in the interpretation of trends. That assumption can no longer be made. The implications arc substantial. The 1974 peak in the incidence of breast cancer (Fig. 4) corresponded to the occurrence of public dis closures that the wives of the U.S. President and Vice President had breast cancer and a major public effort to promote screening for the disease by mammog raphy. Although the 1974 peak was well beyond the limits of random variation, there has been no appar ent corresponding change in mortality from breast cancer (Fig. 2) or in case survival rates (Table 2). We believe that the 1974 peak in incidence is spurious and reflects the inclusion of a proportion of benign and borderline lesions that in other years would not have been detected and reported. That such shifts in diag nostic criteria do occur, and specifically for breast can cer, is well documented.7' 17*IHAfter the 1974 peak the Figure 4, Incidence of All Cancers and Cancers ot Selected Sites, 1973 through 1981, in the White Population oi the S E E R Registry Area. Age was adjusted to the U.S. population of 1980. 1230 THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE May 8, 1986 raics plateaued at a lower level, then started to rise ing of "cancer" of the breast, prostate, and lung, nei slowly but steadily among both white and nonwhitc ther incidence rates nor case survival rates for these women. A recent resurgence of screening programs diseases can be taken as reliable indicators of change may account for some of this latest increase, but pres in the overall progress against cancer. One must won ent data do not permit a definitive conclusion about der whether similar problems aflect the data on other whether it is artifactual or represents a true increase in forms of cancer. Mortality data do, in contrast, meas incidence. ure biologic behavior rather directly. That is mainly Cancer of the prostate is a common incidental find why wc believe that mortality rates, age-adjusted to a ing when unselected tissue specimens of old men are current standard, arc the best single measure of over examined, whether at autopsy (after death from an all progress. Specifically, we disagree with the decision other cause) or biopsy (at surgery for a benign condi of the National Cancer Institute to emphasize survival tion). Reports of prevalence rates in the 25 percent (and the short-range goal of a five-year overall relative range are not rare.7 It is less widely recognized that case survival rate of 50 percent), because it is subject such lesions, especially those found incidentally at to substantial bias from changing standards of diag prostate surgery, are commonly reported as cancer in nosis and reporting. A reported survival rate of 50 per the incidence statistics. There appear to be no data on cent, if many of the patients do not have the biologic what proportion of these prevalent prostatic "can disease in question, would only mislead and confuse the cers" had shown evidence of malignant behavior. In public, the news media, governmental representatives, cidence rates for this disease do not exceed 1.2 per and health professionals who are not sophisticated in cent per year even in the oldest age groups, including biostaiistical and epidemiologic analysis. some proportion of patients with incidental diag Enstrom and Austin22 have also discussed the prob noses; the incidence of clinically apparent prostatic lems of interpreting cancer survival rates. Although cancer must be lower, and mortality rates are lower this matter needs further study, the uncertainties are still. We must conclude that the prevalence rates arc great enough to make case survival an inappropriate seriously inaccurate and that most of the tumors measure of progress. found, which do have the microscopical appearance of Colleagues have argued that the overall picture of malignancy, do not have the behavior we associate cancer mortality is dominated by rising rates of death with the word "cancer." Such an interpretation, com from lung cancer and that this disease should therefore bined with an increasing frequency of incidental be omitted from any summary measure of progress tissue diagnosis, would be consistent with the rapid against cancer. Reasons for such an omission have not changes in survival after prostatic cancer shown in been dearly stated, although it conveniently reverses Table 2. the overall rise in mortality from cancer. Lung cancer Lung cancer has increased rapidly in all major pop is in fact the best illustration of our primary conclu ulation segments. As a result, several kinds of screen sion that despite great effort over many years, research ing programs have been developed and tested. Find on cancer treatment has failed to deal effectively with ings tend to be that n comparison to a randomized control group, the screened group has more cancers Table 2. Absolute and Relative Survival Rates.* detected, the cancers arc tn earlier stages, more arc considered suit able for curative treatment, and Ftvt-Yi* Sr*v il i Yta* Ol Du iX iM} l<7J 1974 1975 W 6 1977 1978 case survival rates arc substantially percent higher. However, overall mortality Absolute ratet is little affected.,9'21 This again All neoplasms 38.5 40.6 41.0 41.2 40.8 40.1 seems to be a result of detecting Colorecut cancer 36.2 37.8 38.2 39.6 39.4 38.7 and reporting lesions that have the Lung cancer 9.0 9. 9.7 10.3 10.6 11.0 microscopical appearance of cancer but not its biologic behavior. As a result of adding these benign condi tions, the pool of real "cancers" is Breast cancer 64.3 65.2 67.0 66.0 66.0 65.0 ProsLaic cancer 41.2 43.9 45.9 47.7 47.8 47 4 HwdgUn's disease 57.7 63.3 66.6 71.9 69 5 67 3 Nnn-Hndgtin's disease 34.3 37.9 40.0 4 1 (1 39.0 3V 0 diluted, and wc find high detection rates, early stage, resectability, and improved case survival, but with little or no change in-outcome as measured by deaths. Thus, the incidence and case sur vival data for three major forms of cancer may not mean what they at Relative ratet All neoplasms 46. X 49.3 50,0 50.3 50.0 J9 1 Colutecial cancel 4 6 4 J8.8 49.4 51.1 51.3 50.3 Lung cancer 11 0 II 9 I I .8 12.5 13 0 13 4 Breast cancel 72.3 -.73.6 75.8 74.7 75.1 74.1 Prostate cancer 60.7 65.0 67.6 70.2 69,9 69 4 Ht*Jgkin`s disease 61.5 67.6 71.0 76 5 74,3 72.0 Non-Hodgkin's disease 40 V 45.1 47.3 48.6 46,8 47 1 first suggest, because nf these un certainties about the current mean *XuHr Unj*uMi>tn*d dat* ( t u n ric M il;N IV p p ijm . N iin v y l O m e t In v itiu tr 1 tic li* h tu tc n w lf' i t d * lm r frttu k v d*tnhu1*m r c b t i * c lit w r v i* * ) i d i l v l* X h t i r (^ i] v L iti< iJh |,V *jn*` jjr Voi. the thcl tali: will ove can per ere-* of rati rea: met ity: in I p. CCS: the I ten ma Ca: cen the tret ant ho J she lost era am car C ag car arc the VCJ rio no: an* Sr< tut go: COI pn S IC evi SCI 1IK po ret lit. un its ca fit Viil. 314 No. 10 I'KOCKKSS AGAINST CANCER? -- HAI LAR AM ) SMITH 1231 the cancer problem. We have never theless calculated age-adjusted mor tality rates excluding lung cancer; with this exclusion the change in overall age-adjusted-mortality from cancer since I95Q shifts from an 8 percent increase to a 13 percent de crease. If one also excludes cancer of the stomach and cervix, whose rates have also been changing for reasons largely unrelated to treat ment (Fig. 5), age-adjusted mortal ity shifts from 130.1 in 1950 to 128.9 in 1980 ;-- a change of less than I percent. It is difficult to claim suc I960 >960 >9 * 0 I960 *990 7000 cess in the war against cancer on VC AO the basis, of these figures. In Figure 5 the time scale is ex Figure 5. Modality Irom Cancer of All Sites and Selected Sites, 1950 through 1982, in the U.S. Population. tended to the year 2000. We have Age was adjusted to the U.S. population of 1980. Extension to the year 2000 is shown marked on the figure the National to reflect the stated goal of the National Cancer Institute. Cancer Institute goal of a 50 per cent reduction in mortality by that year. It is clear that These comments about lack of progress are in no the goal will not be attained unless the present upward way an argument against the earliest possible diagno trend is reversed very soon and there is a precipitous sis and the best possible treatment of cancer. The and unprecedented decline. We do not believe that problem is the lack of any substantial recent improve hopes for such a change are realistic. ment in treating the most common forms. Conclusions Cairns23 has also discussed the results of the effort to develop cures for cancer. His approach is largely Some measures of efforts to control cancer appear to clinical and biologic; ours is largely epidemiologic and show substantial progress, some show substantial statistical, yet we come to similar conclusions about losses, and some show little change. By making delib the poor rate of success to date and the need to recon erate choices among these measures, one can convey sider present directions in both research and applica any impression from overwhelming success against tions. His paper should be read in conjunction with cancer to disaster. ours for a more comprehensive view of the matter. Our choice for the single best measure of progress The main conclusion we draw is that some 35 years against cancer is the mortality rate for all forms of of intense effort focused largely on improving treat cancer combined, age-adjusted to the U.S. 1980 stand ment must be judged a qualified failure. Results have ard. This measure removes the effects of changes in not been what they were intended and expected to be. the size and age composition of the population, pre We think that there could be much current value in a vents the selective reporting of data to support par comprehensive, consolidated, objective review of the ticular views, minimizes the effects of changes in diag technical reasons for this failure. What forces led to nostic criteria related to recent advances in screening overlapping waves of interest and program emphasis, and detection, and directly measures the outcome of such as chemotherapy screening, virology, immunolo greatest concern -- death. The National Cancer Insti gy, and perhaps now molecular biology, that have ap tute has also adopted this standard for its prospective peared to hold more promise than they have fulfilled? goal of halving cancer mortality by the year 2000, but Why were hopes so high, what went wrong, and can continues to use relative case survival rates to assess future efforts be built on more realistic expectations? progress in years past.3,16 Why is cancer the only major cause of death for which Age-adjusted mortality rales have shown a slow and age-adjusted mortality rates are still increasing?2'* steady increase over several decades, and there is no A full analysis of current program plans and direc evidence of a recent downward trend. In this clinical tions would require substantial expertise, time, and sense we arc losing the war against cancer. Substantial support. On the basis of past medical experience with increases in our understanding of the nature and infectious and other nonmalignant diseases, however, properties of cancer have not led to a corresponding we suspect that the most promising areas are in cancer reduction in incidence or mortality. On the basis of prevention rather than treatment. Although no one the age-adjusted trends that we have presented, it is can be certain about the benefits of preventive efforts, unlikely that the National Cancer Institute will attain history suggests that savings in both lives and dollars its stated goal of reducing age-adjusted mortality from could be great. For example, opinions that attempts to cancer by 50 percent by the year 2000-- just 14 years prevent smoking have been discouraging arc wrong. from now. In scarcely 20 years of half-hearted effort, this country 1232 THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE May 8, 1986 has reversed historic trends in smoking and altered its casual tolerance of smokers. Societal antismoking norms have changed, and those who use tobacco arc now on the defensive. Research opportunities in other areas of cancer prevention may well merit sharp in creases in support, even if this requires that current treatment-related research must be substantially cur tailed. Certainly, the background of past disappoint ments must be dealt with in an objective, straight forward, and comprehensive manner before we go much further in pursuit of the cure that always seems just out of reach.24 We are indcbicd to Jesse Berlin and Julia Uailcy for help in processing the data presented here, to Dr. Michael ShimLiii for encouragement, and to many colleagues for helpful comments on earlier drafts. R eferences 1. McKay FW. Hanson MR. Miller RW. Cancer mortality in the United States; 1930-1977. Bclhesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute. 1982. (National Can cer Institute monograph no. 59]. (NIH publication no. 82-2-3351. 2. Vita] statistics in the United States. Vol. 2. Mortality. Pan B. Annual. Rockville. Md.: National Center Tor Health Statistics, 1950-82. 3. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control. Cancer control: objectives for the nation. 1983-2000. Monograph Series (in press). 4. Hill AB. Principles of medical statistics. 9lh cd. New York: Oxford Univer sity Press. 1971. 5. Armitape P. Statistical methods in medical research. New York: John Wi ley. 1971. 6. Fausi KM, Dollman AB. Comparability of mortality statistics for the sixth and seventh revisions. United Slates. 1958. (Vital Statistics special report 51(4)). Rockville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics. March 1965. 7. Klebba AJ. Dollman AB. Comparability of mortality statistics for the sev enth and eighth revisions of the International Classification of Diseases. United States. (Vita) and Health Statistics 2(66)). Rockville. Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, October J975. 8. Klebba AJ. Scon JH. Estimates of selected comparability ratios based on dual coding of 1976 death certificates by the eighth and ninth revisions of the International Classification of Diseases. (Vital Statistics report 28(11). Sup plement). Hyansvillc. Md.: National Center for Health Statistics. February 198. 9. Doll'R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the U.S. today. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. 10. Davis DL. LHienfeld AD. Gitlelsohn A. et al. Increasing cancer in elderly Americans: fact or artifact? Am J Public Health (in press), 11. Kelsey JL. Hildreth NG. Breast and gynecologic cancer epidemiology. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 1983. 12. Miller RW, McKay FW. Decline in the US childhood cancer mortality: 1950 through 1980. JAMA 1984; 251:1567-70. 13. Hammond D. Chard RL Jr, D'Angio GJ. el al. Pediatric malignancies. In; Hnogstraten B, ed. Cancer research: impact of the cooperative groups. New York: Masson. 1980:1-23. 14. Horn JW. Astre AJ. Young JL Jr. cl al., eds. SEER Program: cancer inci dence and mortality in the United States, 1973-81. Bethesda. Md.: Depart ment of Health and Human Services, 1984. (NIH publication no. 85-1637). 15. Edcrer F, Axtcll LM. Culler SJ. The relative survival rate: a statistical methodology. Bclhesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute. 1961. (National Cancer Institute monograph no. 6). 16. DeVita VT. Cancer patient survival statistics. (NCI update). Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, November 26, 1984. 17. Thomas LB. Ackerman LV. McDMii RW, Hanson TAS. Hankcv BF. Prorok PC. Report of NCI ad hoc pathology working group to review the gross and microscopic findings of breast cancer eases in the HIP study (Health Insurance Plan of Greater New York). JNC1 1977; 59:495-541. 18. Beahrs OH, Shapiro S. Smart C. Detailed report of the working group's review of BCDDP. Section 111. Pathology review of minimal breast cancers detected in BCDDP. JNCI 1979: 62:673-84, 19. Berlin NI. Buncher CR. Fontana RS, et al. The National Cancer Institute coopraitve early lung cancer detection program: results of the initial screen (prevalence): introduction. Am Rev Rcspr Dis 1984; 130:545-9. 20. Earlv lung cancer detection: summary and conclusions Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 130:565-70. 21. Bailar JC HI. Screening for lung cancer -- where are we now? Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 130:541-2. 22. Enstrom JE. Austin DF. Interpreting cancer survival rates. Science 1977: 193:847-51. 23. Cairns J. The treatment of diseases and the war against cancer. Sci Am 1985: 253(51:51-9. 24. Bailar JC III. The case for cancer prevention. JNCI 1979: 62:727-31. Massachusetts Medical Society Registry on Continuing Medical Relocation T o obtain information on continuing medical education courses in the New England area, write or call, indicating field(i*) or specialty in wliich information is desired, lo tlie Com m it tee on Medical Education, 1440 Main Si., Waliltam, MA 02254; telephone (GI7) 893-4GI0 (Metropolitan Huston) or WATS 1-800-322-2303 (M assachusetts).