[boh]

It's funny how many years of "X found to be effective in fighting cancer" stories have filtered through HN and then you never hear about it again.

The research at treating mouse cancer has been making great strides--people cancer still has a long way to go though.

[delecti]

I have absolutely no idea what the current frontline treatment drugs are for literally any form of cancer, and would bet the same is true for almost everyone else here. Most of the exceptions are people who know the frontline treatment drugs for one or two forms of cancer that impacted them personally. "And then you never hear about it again" is subtly implying that the drugs behind headlines never proceed beyond that point, but I didn't hear about it when the current frontline became the frontline treatment for any form of cancer. Most people just aren't in the loop about the evolution of the field of oncology, beyond pop-sci headlines.

And yes, most headlines like this don't result in changes to the care provided to anybody outside of clinical trials, but some do, and you and I probably won't hear about those either.

[adrianN]

People cancer outcomes have improved a lot in recent decades. Many forms of cancer are essentially cured if you detect them early enough.

[unsupp0rted]

What's the best protocol for detecting them early enough, as an annual set of tests that a non-crazy / non-rich person would go do?

[inglor_cz]

It's not funny how people make judgments like this without any factchecking, just by their gut.

Talk to any actual healthcare worker from an oncology ward. (A nurse will do.) With most cancers, your chances of survival are non-trivially better now than even in 2010. Immunotherapy absolutely exploded in the meantime. For example, the vast majority of monoclonal antibodies (not just for treatment of cancer) were only approved in the last 15 years.

There are some notable holdouts like glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer, and these tend to draw attention. But there is real progress.

[Spooky23]

The stories are written for a general audience and often lack detail or nuance. "Promising" doesn't mean "likely". "Possible breakthrough" is not a breakthrough. And it may just mean we learn something that we don't know today.

I lost my wife to metastatic melanoma a few years ago. Words used in reference to cancer are often terms of art that have a distinct meaning from the general meaning. Her particular cancer was pretty awful and lacked mutations that allowed for the use of targeted therapy that buy time. Even still, her chances of survival were about 65% in 2023 as compared to 0% in 2013. Unfortunately, the odds didn't end in her favor, despite the incredible efforts of a team of doctors at a national cancer center.

Anything with cancer research and treatment is an testament to standing on the shoulders of those who came before. Many people suffered to give my Molly those odds - she had hope where many others had nothing. And today, we have trials of custom vaccines that will offer others more hope and perhaps safer treatment. Perhaps in some small way her journey and ideal helped those or other developments. That's all we have.

[dekhn]

I think this is one of the expected outcomes of "Science by Press Release" (universities motivated to maximize their grants and IP), combined with media/press that wants clicks (articles that talk about cures for cancer get clicks).

[rgmerk]

As a rule of thumb, if you’re not a researcher in the area ignore any media reports of a study that include the words “in mice”.

Also, there’s a tendency on HN for commenters (mostly software engineers) to think that they are smarter than the scientists who work on this stuff day in, day out. Let me tell you, you, random HN reader are not smarter than random biomedical scientists.