Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => Physiology & Medicine => Topic started by: neilep on 20/08/2012 11:24:11
-
This has been reported in the news since last night but like so many news reports no reason ' WHY' is given....so....
Why will cancer in pensioners treble by 2040 ?...This makes my future pretty damn pessimistic !! [:(]
I can't believe it's because that in 2040 there will be three times as many pensioners as there are today (or will that in fact be the case ?).......though I am aware that we all live with an increased ageing population. You'd think that that with advances in treatment the opposite would be true !
whajafink ?
-
Assuming you're talking about tripling...
The post-war "Baby Boom" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom) will be fizzling by 2040.... Whew, I guess I just missed it as it is defined as 1946 to 1964. But, the youngest "boomers" will be 76 in 2040, with the oldest at 94.
So, the surge in retired elderly will start going back down by that time, but nearly all remaining "boomers" will be retired by 2040, with most retiring by 2030.
One of the issues with cancer (and cancer survivors) is that the risk increases somewhat with age. So, as we improve treatments for communicable diseases, and cardiac problems... more people will be living to the point where cancer becomes symptomatic.
I'm seeing estimates that as many as 80% of 80 yr olds have prostate cancer. However, it is a very slow progressing disease and people can live more than a decade before it becomes symptomatic. But, with more men living to 90, many more will have time for the disease to become symptomatic.
However, one of the things that the estimates may not fully calculate is that a portion of the people will have genes that would generally preclude them ever developing symptomatic cancer.
-
Is it the raw numbers that will treble? Because that could be explained by three times more pensioners, or is the rate of cancer among pensioners?
My first thought was that more of their lives will have been exposed to carcenogenic substances, but that doesn't really make sense on reflection, you'd think that would have gone down by then.
I guess it also depends on what sort of cancer it is. Is there a link to the original story, strange sheep man?
-
Assuming you're talking about tripling...
Yes I am, sorry for the ambiguity [;)]
The post-war "Baby Boom" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boom) will be fizzling by 2040.... Whew, I guess I just missed it as it is defined as 1946 to 1964. But, the youngest "boomers" will be 76 in 2040, with the oldest at 94.
So, the surge in retired elderly will start going back down by that time, but nearly all remaining "boomers" will be retired by 2040, with most retiring by 2030.
One of the issues with cancer (and cancer survivors) is that the risk increases somewhat with age. So, as we improve treatments for communicable diseases, and cardiac problems... more people will be living to the point where cancer becomes symptomatic.
I'm seeing estimates that as many as 80% of 80 yr olds have prostate cancer. However, it is a very slow progressing disease and people can live more than a decade before it becomes symptomatic. But, with more men living to 90, many more will have time for the disease to become symptomatic.
However, one of the things that the estimates may not fully calculate is that a portion of the people will have genes that would generally preclude them ever developing symptomatic cancer.
Aren't there any estimates for advances in the treatments of or even cures of ? Thank you Cliffordk
-
Is it the raw numbers that will treble? Because that could be explained by three times more pensioners, or is the rate of cancer among pensioners?
My first thought was that more of their lives will have been exposed to carcenogenic substances, but that doesn't really make sense on reflection, you'd think that would have gone down by then.
I guess it also depends on what sort of cancer it is. Is there a link to the original story, strange sheep man?
Thanks bizerl I'm sure it was the raw numbers it was referring to. I'll have to do a hunt to see if there is more info available !
So annoying when things are just reported as facts with no explanation.....grrrr !!
-
There are actually a few notes on it on the WWW.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9486744/Pensioners-with-cancer-to-triple-by-2040.html
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/08august/Pages/over-65s-with-cancer-to-triple.aspx
So, as suspected, there are a few issues.
Aging population (Baby Boomers?)
They are lumping cancer survivors with people who have ever had cancer. In fact, they don't seem to distinguish between those that have long-term remission vs those who are alive, but fighting the disease.
-
There are actually a few notes on it on the WWW.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9486744/Pensioners-with-cancer-to-triple-by-2040.html
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/08august/Pages/over-65s-with-cancer-to-triple.aspx
So, as suspected, there are a few issues.
Aging population (Baby Boomers?)
They are lumping cancer survivors with people who have ever had cancer. In fact, they don't seem to distinguish between those that have long-term remission vs those who are alive, but fighting the disease.
Thanks for this CliffordK...all I heard was a silly radio report during a three minute news segment !