national

10-year cancer survival rate in Japan rises to 58.3%: survey

12 Comments

The 10-year survival rate for patients diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2007 in Japan stood at 58.3 percent, up 1.1 percentage points from the previous survey, the National Cancer Center Japan has found.

The survey has continually shown an improvement in life expectancy since the center started collecting data around 2000, which the center attributes to increased accessibility to treatment.

The improved survival rate was not dependent on the development of new cures, but more on how "general treatment was becoming available across the country," said Haruo Mikami, a department head of the Cancer Prevention Center at the Chiba Cancer Center Research Institute, which conducted the survey.

The 10-year survey, the sixth of its kind, covered around 94,000 patients diagnosed and treated at 21 hospitals specializing in cancer treatments in Japan. The previous survey covered a period between 2003 and 2006.

By type of cancer, the 10-year survival rate for prostate cancer was the highest at 98.8 percent, followed by breast cancer at 86.8 percent and thyroid cancer at 85.7 percent.

The worst was pancreatic cancer at 6.2 percent, followed by liver cancer at 16.1 percent and gallbladder or bile duct cancer at 19.1 percent.

The five-year survival rate for those diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2012 was 68.6 percent, up 0.2 percentage point from the previous survey covering those who received their diagnoses between 2009 and 2011.

Ten-year survival rates by body part were roughly the same.

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

12 Comments
Login to comment

My partner asked me if there is any good news today. I quoted this one.

although...2017 is a little before the effects of Fukushima radiation to fully present...

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Those pre-corona values are of no valid use anymore. That data has to be newly collected from scratch.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Same lies in every country. Doctors will declare a patient free from cancer and that becomes one positive cancer statistic. When the same patient returns with another cancer and dies, that is a new case and a negative statistic. That is why official statistics show high “ survival” rates

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Those pre-corona values are of no valid use anymore. That data has to be newly collected from scratch.

There is still a lot of value in these statistics.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

This year becoming a prostate cancer suvivor I am happy to see the 10 year survival rate at 98.8%. I had my removed using the da Vinc robot which limits the surgical intrusions and quickens the healing times and decreasing the infections rates. I was home again after about a week. But those machines cost about $2 million each. Surgical training for the doctors. I am fortunate to live in a country which has them.

My PSA is now almost zero from a peak of 50.

Cancer remains a terrible disease for so many.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Those pre-corona values are of no valid use anymore. That data has to be newly collected from scratch.

Has to be? They're a way of looking at whether diagnosis and the subsequent treatment of cancer are effective, and whether they're improving.

A 10 year survival rate that fully covers the COVID era, however long that turns out to be, which is still unknown, is far into the future. For now, the figures are progressively updated, and they show what happens to people diagnosed (by definition) more than 10 years ago. Hence the 2003-2006 period (mentioned in the report) followed by the 2004-2007 period, which is the most recent period reported.

From that it would seem that you can expect the first COVID year to appear in the 2018-2020 figure and for it to be reported in around 2034, which you can read then if you're still around.

Your comment about "newly collected from scratch" makes little sense, because it's clear that these figures are being collected on the roll - starting around 2000 and six distinct periods have been reported already. The first corona-inclusive figures are over a decade away, but will be reported when the required time has elapsed.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Same lies in every country. Doctors will declare a patient free from cancer and that becomes one positive cancer statistic. When the same patient returns with another cancer and dies, that is a new case and a negative statistic. That is why official statistics show high “ survival” rates

Don’t spread this BS. Doctors don’t declare people cancer free, even if you’ve had successful treatment you still have to have regular checks for years thereafter since there is a significant risk of its returning. So you don’t just disappear and start over.

I saw this happen to my little sister. She had successful treatment for breast cancer, but within a year it was back and had spread. She died of it last year, didn’t make it to 10 years from her initial diagnosis.

Cancer sucks.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You are not the only one , “ rainyday “ with close family members having died from recurring cancers. If doctors would not declare patients cancerfree there could not be one percent of cured patients in these statistics.

second i am happy for everyone overcoming any life threatening disease. one is not easier than the other.

in my country Belgium the doctors most certainly declare patients cancer free and checkups are of course necessary as a controlling measure. Just like regular checkups keep are preventive or early detection means.

My uncle was diagnosed with one form of cancer and declared cured. 4 years later he contracted pancreatic cancer and passed away because of it.

anyway this is a useless conversation i should not have started. When you have cancer you don’t care about statistics just about getting healthy again. Shall we leave it at that

0 ( +2 / -2 )

After my cancer op I had months of tests and now will three month checkups. I was informed there are no signs of any further cancer but I have never been told "I was cancer free!"

In the future I could well develop another form of cancer. For the moment I'm happy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You are not the only one , “ rainyday “ with close family members having died from recurring cancers. If doctors would not declare patients cancerfree there could not be one percent of cured patients in these statistics.

That's crap. The figures look at 10-year survival rates (and before that there's the far more important figure, for many cancers, of the 5-year survival rate). Multi-year survival rates are not a "cancer-freeness" judgement, they are a specified length of survival measured from diagnosis. That's a specified period measured from a specified point.

A doctor might tell you that you're cancer free, though many are far more cautious than that and prefer to be less definitive in any pronouncements they make, if they make any at all. It is also extremely common for patients to misinterpret or overinterpret what they are told. Either way, this is not something that is included in or impacts 10-year survival rates in any way. Those are intentionally set to use data points that are not subjective: 1. you do have cancer at the start of measurement. 2. You are still alive (or not) at the end of measurement.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I agree. Even if a hundred doctors declare a patient cancer free, if the patient die within 10 years of diagnosis then it's counted as a negative in this statistic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Anyway, I think I really should cut back on drinking =)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites