When it comes to charitable donations for cancer, it seems not all malignancies are created equal.
In fact, says a report by Charity Intelligence Canada, there are huge discrepancies in funding dollars for individual types of cancer, with four of the deadliest receiving far less than other cancers that have much higher cure rates.
The report, released Tuesday, found that pancreatic, lung, stomach and colorectal cancers combined cause nearly half of Canadian cancer deaths. But they receive only 15 per cent of research funding and less than two per cent of charity funding.
Based on potential years of life lost, these four cancers receive $63 in research funding and less than $5 in charity funding for every year of life they take, the report states. Breast cancer, by contrast, receives $575 in research funding and $691 in charity funding per potential year of life lost — 151 times more.
“When we saw that number we were flabbergasted. We were shocked,” said Karen Young, the cancer research analyst for Charity Intelligence.
Colorectal cancer, for instance, killed an estimated 9,100 Canadians last year, making it the second most deadly malignancy after lung cancer. Yet charities for breast cancer, a disease that has an 89 per cent five-year survival rate and claimed 5,400 lives, received 36 times more money from donors.
Of the 278 cancer-related charities in Canada, 44 are strictly dedicated to breast cancer, said Young.
Far from knocking the richness of breast cancer support, Young said she sees the success of pink ribbon advocacy as an opportunity for other cancers.
“Breast cancer has made huge strides over the last few decades, largely driven by the funding and by the awareness of breast cancer and the need for screening,” she said Tuesday. “And the biggest driver of that has been the survivor network.”
With more and more women beating breast cancer, patients and their loved ones have banded together to support research into a possible cure, better treatments and prevention, she said, calling the vast network “a virtuous circle.”
“What we would like to do is create that for other cancers by giving them a voice,” Young stressed. “What we would like Canadians to think about is making their cancer funding decisions in a way that will minimize the number of lives taken.”
Pancreatic cancer, whose recent victims include actor Patrick Swayze at age 57 and Quebec cabinet minister Claude Bechard, aged 41, has one of the worst five-year survival rates of any malignancy — six per cent if confined to the insulin-producing organ, less than two per cent if it has spread elsewhere in the body. Last year, the disease killed an estimated 3,900 Canadians.
Its poor prognosis may be one reason the disease falls behind some other cancers on the funding scale, hypothesized Young.
“In pancreatic cancer, we don’t know what causes it and so we don’t know what to do,” she said. “Most people don’t know survivors, most people don’t know anyone with the disease, and I think there’s a sense of helplessness, a sense of ’What could I do?’ And people tend to give when asked.”
Young said certain diseases, such as childhood cancers and leukemia, often attract more donors because “there’s this sense of innocence being killed.”
People who develop lung cancer, which has a five-year survival rate of roughly 15 per cent and killed more than 20,000 Canadians last year, are typically perceived as having brought on the disease themselves by smoking, she said.
Michael Wosnick, vice-president of research for the Canadian Cancer Society, agreed with the report’s conclusion that there are inequities in funding individual cancers, but he said that’s been known for some time.
“The Canadian Cancer Society has always taken a different approach,” he said.
“We’re bigger, but we feel we have a responsibility that’s much broader ... Even in research, we’re about all cancers and making the most impact we can in all communities and we’re not dedicated to a particular disease or a particular focus.”
“So we fund research in lung, in colorectal, in stomach, in pancreatic and, yes, in breast and prostate and leukemia and childhood cancers. But we fund the very best we can through a celebrated and recognized peer-review system. ... Our No. 1 criterion for distribution of research funds is very simple: it’s about the most excellent proposals that we believe will make the most impact. Period.”
Overall, cancer charities received more than $1.9 billion in 2009, of which $1.3 billion was from government sources and $614 million from individual donors, said Young.
Charity Intelligence is encouraging donors to make sure individual charities match their donation goals and “that they don’t necessarily give to the cancer charity that asks the loudest or the most frequently.”
Canadians could also choose to give directly to research institutions, rather than going through a specific charity, which will have some level of overhead and administration costs that come out of donations, she said.
However, Wosnick warned against that idea, saying donors would have no guarantee that proposed projects had undergone rigorous scientific review and could end up wasting precious research dollars.
———
Online:
Charity Intelligence Canada: www.charityintelligence.ca
Canadian Cancer Society: www.cancer.ca