Don't mean to be a killjoy, and perhaps this is stating the obvious for the HN crowd but this doesn't mean the broader rate of cancer is down; but that medical treatment has improved. The latter being more lucrative than prevention (at least for the med community).
I'd also like to mention, that these are deaths limited to cancer. Death is attributed to something else this stat will be affected. This is, in theory, you can "survive" cancer but die from something related to that condition and it won't count as a cancer death.
I'd liken it, somewhat, to war. Yes, less soldies are dying. But survival comes at a cost. No arms. No legs. Mental and emotional wounds. Etc.
I'm not knocking the progress with cancer; only providing some necessary context that's often missing.
<added>
The point is, beating up data is easy. Be mindful of what you might be looking at, especially if the outcomes are good for an industy's well-being.
I'd also like to mention, that these are deaths limited to cancer. Death is attributed to something else this stat will be affected. This is, in theory, you can "survive" cancer but die from something related to that condition and it won't count as a cancer death.
I'd liken it, somewhat, to war. Yes, less soldies are dying. But survival comes at a cost. No arms. No legs. Mental and emotional wounds. Etc.
I'm not knocking the progress with cancer; only providing some necessary context that's often missing.
<added>
The point is, beating up data is easy. Be mindful of what you might be looking at, especially if the outcomes are good for an industy's well-being.
</added>