« The American Lung Association Urges Stronger Air Pollution Health Standards and We Need Your Help | Main | They’re Listening.... »
March 14, 2006
All Lung Cancer Sufferers are Victims
Last week we lost one of the country’s top patient advocates to lung cancer. Dana Reeve was only 44 years old, and according to the media reports, she wasn’t a smoker.
While we haven’t seen clear data on the subject, there are anecdotal reports of a rise in lung cancer in nonsmoking women. We’re beginning to see evidence of genetic susceptibility to lung cancer in this group. According to a study conducted in France, as reported in Pubmed, “the epidemiology of the disease in women is different, with tobacco smoking explaining only 70% of the incidence. Other risk factors such as higher expression of the gastrin-releasing peptide (GRP) receptor, hormonal factors, radon and passive smoking may also play a role.”
While smoking is still, without a doubt, the number one cause of lung cancer, there clearly are other risk factors for lung cancer, including the following:
Radon - Radon is considered to be the second leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S. today. Radon gas can come up through the soil under a home or building and enter through gaps and cracks in the foundation or insulation, as well as through pipes, drains, walls or other openings. Radon causes between 15,000 and 22,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the United States -- 12 percent of all lung cancer deaths are linked to radon.
Secondhand Smoke - Many of the chemicals in tobacco smoke also affect the nonsmoker inhaling the smoke, making "secondhand smoking" another important cause of lung cancer. It is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually.
Industrial Exposures - Another leading cause of lung cancer is on-the-job exposure to cancer-causing substances or carcinogens. Asbestos is a well-known, work-related substance that can cause lung cancer, but there are many others, including uranium, arsenic, and certain petroleum products.
Particulate Pollution - A recent study published in the Journal of American Medical Association suggests that particulate matter pollution can cause lung cancer.
How can you prevent lung cancer?
First, if you smoke, quit. The more time and quantity you smoke, the greater your risk of developing lung cancer. But if you stop smoking, the risk of lung cancer decreases each year as normal cells replace abnormal cells. After ten years, the risk drops to a level that is one-third to one-half of the risk for people who continue to smoke. In addition, quitting smoking greatly reduces the risk of developing other smoking-related diseases, such as heart disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Visit our Freedom From Smoking Online program or call one of our lung health experts at the Lung HelpLine at 1-800-LUNGUSA to help you quit.
If you are a nonsmoker, know your rights to a smoke-free environment at work and in public places. Make your home smoke-free. Test your home for radon. If you are exposed to dusts and fumes at work, ask questions about how you are being protected.
How is lung cancer detected?
There have been reports in recent years of new approaches to detect and diagnose lung cancer. While they have attracted much attention, few of them have been fully studied for effectiveness and accuracy. The hottest technology in diagnosis has been low-dose CAT scans. Also known as spiral CT, there is no question that this technology detects early lung cancer. It also detects benign material more frequently, so it’s not clear whether, as a screening device, it does more good than harm. Right now the effectiveness of the spiral CT scan is being studied through a federal lung cancer research program, so we should know pretty soon if this is an effective tool.
Other areas of promise include blood tests for lung cancer indicators and tests to detect lung cancer in sputum cells, at the moment neither of these is recommended for clinical use. We’re also looking at new medicines that do seem to prolong life, and we’re seeing some promise in experimentation with immunotherapy.
What next?
We’ve barely scratched the surface when it comes to lung cancer research. Despite the fact that Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in both men and women, lung cancer-specific research has not received funding equal to its effects on those diagnosed with it and on our society as a whole. Attitudes need to change. Smokers are the victims. The tobacco industry has addicted millions of people through their powerful, deceptive advertising. The federal government needs to allocate more money for the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer.
The diagnosis -
If you or a loved one has been diagnosed with lung cancer you need to get the facts. Our Lung Cancer Profiler is a tool that can help you learn about treatment options for your specific diagnosis. The Lung Cancer Profiler will not only help you in your quest for information, it should also serve as a tool for discussing an appropriate plan with your doctor.
Posted by lungblogposter at March 14, 2006 12:49 PM
Comments
My wife died of non-small cell lung cancer on Nov. 25 2004 only 3 weeks after she was diagnosed. She had smoked from 1956 until 1989 when she stopped. Both of her parents were chain smokers. By all accounts she was at high risk for lung cancer even 18 years after stopping. I find it hard to believe that if she had had a spiral CT scan a year or two earlier her cancer could have been detected in stage one instead of stage four and perhaps cured. The study currently being conducted regarding the effectiveness of spiral CT scans is due to be completed in 2008. So what do high risk people do until then or better yet what should they do if the American Cancer Society decides CT screening is not effective. We have to start somewhere.
Posted by: Lincoln Mueller at March 17, 2006 06:30 PM
Dana Reeves' battle with lung cancer at age 44 reminded me of my brother, who also died from this terrible disease at age 42 in 2003. Like Dana, he was also a non-smoker. He had a form of bone cancer when he was in 2nd grade, and we fear that the chemo and radiation treatments might have caused the lung cancer later in life. We will never know and are devastated that he is no longer with us. People magazine stated that as of 2005, the National Cancer Institute spent $23,000 per breast cancer death on research but only $1,800 per lung cancer death - when lung cancer is far more deadlier than breast cancer. I hope something can be done so that more money and effort can be dedicated to lung cancer research.
Posted by: Amy Lai at March 18, 2006 09:33 PM
Here in Chicago, when I told a local probate judge that my mother's health was being endangered by being in a nursing home exposed to second hand smoke, the judge turned off the recorder, left the court room and told me to think about how my words hurt my mother. I agreed, but then the bailiff told me I belonged in jail for speaking to the judge that way.
I cough more at the nursing home, she coughs more there, but my concerns about her lung health are met with words about belonging in jail for having concerns about a person's right to be free of second hand smoke.
It is kind of weird. Some people here view it as more important to confine people to nursing homes when they are upset about being sworn at, car hit with hockey sticks, being beat up, pushed in a hospital, loosing a son and told it was natural death with 438 mg/dl of alcohol the previous fall and 77mg/dl on autopsy, loosing property, having a son complain about employment discrimination and work taken without credit, and being a victim of sexual attacks. Saying that there is a lot of smoking is something that we put people in jail for.
Judges sit in judgement in some cases and really do not have time to listen that they are violating people's rights and endangering people's health. Some patients are just so stressed that they get scared.
Sad.......
Posted by: James T. Struck at March 27, 2006 12:11 AM
I had an entire lung removed 16 years ago with lung cancer. I believe staying active is what has saved my life, I am very active and now 77 years young.
Posted by: Betty at June 30, 2006 03:08 PM
Thanks for your informative blog. I've become aware of acquaintences in Los Angeles and the Bay Area, who never smoked, and have lung cancer. One is a healthy-looking woman, 45, excercises daily, and eats well...I'm hearing about more and more women that are getting lung cancer in L.A., that fact, along with traffic, makes me want to move to a place with clean air.
Posted by: Chris O'brian at November 23, 2006 07:14 AM
My 49 year young friend Peter John Yeager died Wed Jan 10 2007 of lung cancer. 6 weeks after begin diagnosed.
He was a smoker since childhood. Besides smoking, he was always in great physical shape.
There needs to be a simple low cost test for high risk folks.
I miss my friend greatly. I want to go motorcycle riding with him.
Posted by: Mark at January 14, 2007 01:26 PM
Hoping you can contribute to a good cause ---
I'm raising money for the American Lung Association by participating in their bike ride on June 8th, 9th and 10th.
If you would like to donate to this event to find cures for Lung Cancer, please click on the link below or you can copy and past the link below into the address field which will allow you to donate money to this cause:
http://www.mrsnv.com/evt/e01/part.jsp?id=1436&acct=4170035140&rid=0
Thank you
Posted by: Workingtowardsacure at May 12, 2007 10:57 PM
my father is 87 and has been diagnosed with nsc lung cancer and has choose not to do anything. no surgery, chemo, or radiation. He says he feels good right now and why have any of the treatment options and feel ill. Does anyone know how fast this is going to grow. The doctor says 6mo to year, but dad feels ok.
Anyone else been there.
Thanks
Posted by: janice at September 21, 2007 03:17 PM
