<story><title>Breast-cancer death rate drops almost 40 percent</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/03/breast-cancer-death-rate-drops-almost-40-percent-saving-32200-lives-study-says</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>dweekly</author><text>Great! Now can the people interested in helping fewer women (and men) die of cancer please turn their attention to lung cancer, where there is far better &amp;quot;bang for the buck&amp;quot; on research investment?&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cancer.org&amp;#x2F;cancer&amp;#x2F;non-small-cell-lung-cancer&amp;#x2F;about&amp;#x2F;key-statistics.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.cancer.org&amp;#x2F;cancer&amp;#x2F;non-small-cell-lung-cancer&amp;#x2F;abo...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Most people who get and die from lung cancer are not smokers. Like my mom.</text></comment>
<story><title>Breast-cancer death rate drops almost 40 percent</title><url>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/10/03/breast-cancer-death-rate-drops-almost-40-percent-saving-32200-lives-study-says</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>stevenwoo</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t know much about statistics - can someone tell me why five year survival rates are always used for cancer?  This seems kind of off, that instead one should be using the average or median age to which one is expected to live versus how long a cancer survivor lives.  Five years seems most misleading when applied to children that get cancer.</text></comment>