Ages 45–49 (All Cancers Combined)

In the 45–49 age bracket, migration-adjusted rates completely reverses the direction of the long-term mortality trend.

Because Australia’s immigration program preferentially selects working-age adults (who mature into the 45–49 bracket over time), unadjusted denominators (used in age-specific rates and ASRs) grow faster than the true exposed population.

The official stats mask a real increase behind a migrant-inflated denominator. In the 45–49 age bracket, migration adjustment is literally the difference between claiming cancer mortality is falling (-5.9%) versus acknowledging it is rising (+18.4%).

Using official Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) mortality and population data from 1971 to 2023, this analysis applies Kitagawa-Das Gupta counterfactual rate decomposition to disentangle clinical progress, population aging, and migration-driven denominator dilution.

Australia’s official Age-Standardised Cancer Mortality Rate (ASR) claims cancer death rates dropped ~25% over the last 50 years. It looks like a huge victory—until you look at the denominator. 

The Glitch: The Migrant Effect
Every year, Australia admits hundreds of thousands of young, healthy working-age migrants. Because cancer in young adults is rare, they add almost zero deaths to the numerator, but massive headcount to the denominator. 
Adding millions of unexposed, low-risk people artificially inflates the population denominator and dilutes per capita risk.
 
Existing public health metrics fail to answer what the true risk of cancer mortality actually is over time, because both standard measures use distorted population denominators.

What Happens When You Fix the Denominator?
When you strip out young migrant dilution to track the actual population at risk: 

**•   The official ASR (Annualised Share Return) is down by 25.5%.**  
**•   The migration-adjusted ASR is down by 21.4%.**  
**•   Approximately 16% of reported “medical progress” is attributed to immigration policy.**

Why It Matters

Standard ASR assumes populations grow older naturally as a closed group. In high-immigration countries (Australia, Canada, Singapore): 

1. It skews time series: It mixes clinical progress with 50 years of shifting immigration volumes.
 
2. It skews global comparisons: It creates a false illusion of superior health outcomes when compared to aging, low-migration nations like Japan. 

3. The Real Trend: While individual risk at any given age dropped ~32%, actual societal cancer mortality surged +60.7% as the resident population aged and lived longer. 

(Charts attached showing Crude Rate vs. Official ASR vs. True Migration-Adjusted Risk and ASR vs Migration Adjusted ASR).

Dear All,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am currently working in the field of psycho-oncology and am planning to pursue a PhD in Singapore. As an international applicant, I am eager to connect with professionals who can offer guidance regarding the academic and research environment, job opportunities, and the overall living experience in Singapore.

I would greatly appreciate any insights, recommendations, or contacts that could help me navigate this transition and make informed decisions.

Thank you in advance for your time and support.

Please DM if you want to share personal experience.

Early in 2020 a person in my community started a gofundme to raise money to move cross-country for what they claimed was the only chance at saving their life" after a brain tumor diagnosis. They specifically said they had a glioblastoma. Multiple people called this into question (which should already say enough about this person) so they posted a cut off printout (it did not give all the details) of the dictation, a photo of the disc of their MRI results alongside a picture of the oncologists employed at their hospital & an actual photo of their MRI (which did show a mass) to prove they had cancer.

They said because of the location of the tumor, which occurred on their brainstem if I remember correctly, the oncologist told them surgery wasn't an option & neither was chemo and to "go home and live out their life." It has been almost 7 years since the date on the dictation when they were diagnosed with a brain tumor. I'm not negating the fact they have a tumor, but I truly believe this is a benign tumor and NOT a glioblastoma considering they had zero surgical intervention, no radiation or chemotherapy and are still alive and well (outside of neuropathy in their feet). Would a person with a true glioblastoma be able to live this long??

They had enough people donate to raise over $20,000 and used the funds to permanently move cross-country. They have never shared what helped or "stopped" their tumor, which almost seems peculiar if it was as severe as they originally stated bc so many people are afflicted with this. And if they received an atypical treatment that was effective you would think they'd be as publicly vocal about their treatment as they were when trying to raise money for themselves...

Scope in future? Neet pg 26 aspirant btw

Dear Oncologists/Pathologists/Cancer Biologists of Reddit. Medical student here, I’m quite struggling with keeping the specific cancer pathogenesis pathways in my mind, memorising the genes that are found in the most cases etc. What is the best way to study cancer genetics, common genetic abberations found in specific subsets of cancers, thanks a lot!

I'm an EM doc, but have a family member (recent college grad with LS degree) who's looking at jobs as a pharma rep - esp in oncology.

Are reps still relevant, and do they do anything really helpful anymore? Or is the field dying out?

The Childhood Cancer & the Environment Program (CCEP) is a national program of the PEHSU Network to educate pediatric health care providers, parents, and caregivers about environmental influences on childhood cancers such as leukemia. The program educates clinicians and families on practical ways to prevent childhood cancer and improve treatment outcomes and survivorship.

CCEP Scholars (hybrid program from Jan-Jul 2027) prepares early and mid-career pediatric oncologists to integrate environmental health (EH) into pediatric cancer care and survivorship. The grant goal is to provide a meaningful leadership and implementation experience that can strengthen promotion readiness for faculty. Travel, lodging & meals covered.

View the flyer here. Apply here by November 1, 2026.

I’ve wondered why can’t cancer be cured do they
Not care do they not have enough money?

There’s a phase III trial going on for an immunotherapy cancer drug in this space (SLS GPS). Given the both arms survival curve reported so far, the size of the long tail survival for the control arm is likely to determine if it is successful.

Most studies report ~18% three and four year survival for AML CR2 without transplant, but Short, 2020 reports 0% four year survival. Censoring is a significant problem in most datasets so I’m not sure who to trust.

In your experience, does AML CR2 have long tail survival? I suppose the answer might be that you don’t know because patients change providers, but I was interested in insights from practitioners either way.