> if you find it at Stage I, you have much better odds than if you find it at Stage IV.

Very true, however, Stage I cancer is still localized, Stage IV cancer has spread to other organs.

To your point though, Lance Armstrong beat cancer after it had metastasized. He was an exception. He was in stellar condition. I doubt most folks would be able to endure what he could.

For colon cancer, bleeding is sometimes unnoticed or written off as hemorrhoids, so it is ignored and given time to grow and spread. This, I believe, is the chief reason why it's so lethal (there are exceptions, of course). Colon cancer is curable if found early enough. Sharon Osbourne has been cancer free for 13 years only because she caught it early.

those are just the stats. Metastatic cancer is almost always fatal with an average survival of 2 years. That shows why more progress need to be made.

The GP's point is that you should specifically say metastatic cancer if you want to cite that statistic, not generalize it to cancer.

This might be a stupid question, but doesn't "spread" imply metastasis? It just has better rhyming options.

If it's metastatic, you've had it... doesn't quite trip off the tongue.

Sort of. If it's limited to only metastasis, then the original statement "Much process has been made in heart disease, but cancer?" is pretty silly, as it's comparing the worst of cancer cases with all of heart disease.

spread= metastatic

Yes, I understand that, but your comment is easy to read as being about all cancer, and an awful lot of treatment is done prior to it spreading.

Much process has been made in heart disease, but cancer? Not so much. is really the problem, as early stage treatment has gotten vastly more effective over the last 20 years (My father succumbed to metastatic cancer in 1994, I pay some attention to the overall progress in addressing cancer).