Cancer survival rates are pants

[Pinkprescription]

Reading the bbc article on how the Government aim for three quarters of people up “survive” cancer by 2035, I can’t help but think we should be striving for more.
Survival rates, as far as I understand it, are based on being alive 5 years after diagnosis, no matter the stage of cancer.
For some reason the 5 years test rankles. I’ve known close relatives survive over a decade before a reoccurrence. A decade of cancer free living is wonderful. However, a close friend technically was a “survivor” but spent five years battling increasingly more aggressive tumours, was incredibly unwell and had only a handful of weeks with any quality of life in that 5 years period.
We all know/know of people who have had cancer and gone on to live many many years afterwards.
I understand that 3 and 5 years were chosen as data suggested if you survive these initial periods, then the probability of surviving long term is really good, in other words expected clinical outcomes stabilise after that period.
But when I think of a twenty something having “survived” cancer, just because they have lived 5 years from diagnosis, it seems very measly, grossly unfair to measure a life vs 5 years.
Again, I understand that many cancer patients are elderly and it’s not always clear what role the cancer contributes towards death.
I’m probably being unreasonable and morbid to boot, but a non-elderly relative is on the path to a diagnosis of a cancer with very low survival rates.

Your personal experience colours your view. That's normal.

My dm got BC in her 50s. Mastectomy then she was clear until her 80s when she developed a tumour elsewhere and died. It may have been completely unrelated, analysis wasn't as advanced back then.

My dsis is 10 years clear. I'm 4 years clear. Life for us is completely normal but we have both done what we can to maintain immune systems, stopping drinking, cooking from scratch, very healthy diets, plenty of exercise, reduced stress etc.

I hope your relative comes through ok.

Depends on the cancer .
Bowel cancer can be cut out and done if found early enough.
I have had two relatives who are now bowel cancer free and because they are closely monitored afterwards have found other things that they may have had issues with if not being monitored. One heart thing found in a scan and the other prostate cancer ( so admittedly cancer but bowel still fine after 9 years) also a artery issue they would not have found without scans.

The aim for three quarters of people to 'survive' cancer seems meaningless to me - cancer is a catchall word for a massive array of illnesses that range from a small contained tumour that can be cut out easily and cause no issues, to multi-organ, terminal disease that has no treatment. Everyone should get prompt and appropriate treatment but aiming for 75% to 'survive' (which as you say is also quite meaningless as a concept) comes across to me as a silly soundbite.

One concern I have is that they'll get so fixated on this stupid goal that they'll start going hard on 'preventative' measures which generally amount to harassing people endlessly about alcohol and weight.