Linda and friend under the protection of Horus
Unfortunately, he let her down
If it were possible to crush cancer under the weight of
published scientific papers, cancer would already be history. To avoid doing housework I have spent the
morning playing with my computer, specifically with Google Scholar. Just now I
asked GS to look for scientific
papers with the phrase “epithelial ovarian cancer” in their titles, published
since 2013. Eighteen months’ worth of
the finest thought by ovarian cancer experts!
The program returned 714
papers! I also asked for papers during
the same interval of time that had that phrase anywhere in the article. The return: well over 4,000!
And yet, as one paper put it, epithelial ovarian cancer
continues to represent “late presentation and stagnant mortality statistics.” In other words – for all this effort, and for
all the money expended, we are getting essentially nowhere. If you don’t believe me, read Clifton
Leaf. What to do?
This rainy afternoon I sat down and asked Google Scholar to tell me how many scientific papers were published between 1970 and 2000 with “epithelial ovarian cancer” in their titles. There were 1480. Then I asked for the interval 2000 to present. 4850! So, the rate of publication picked up from about 50 per year to nearer 350 per year. Compare, then, cancer mortality. Between 1975 and 2000 the mortality rate for all women in the United States suffering from ovarian cancer fell from about 16 per 100, 000 to about 14. From then until now the decrease was from 14 to about 12.5. Would it be fair to conclude that the desired result (curing ovarian cancer) does not exactly track the amount of effort and money put into accomplishing it? You damned right! As my friend Saul has often said, our progress stinks (or words to that effect).
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, most of the decrease is seen in the younger cohort of women, probably reflecting earlier diagnosis. Women over 65 show no benefit from all this effort, at all.
It is easy to be pessimistic.