How to detect the deadliest form of cancer

Lung cancer is the deadliest of cancers. Screening could save thousands of lives, so why is it not the norm?

Lung cancer kills more people than any other form of tumour.
About nine out of ten people die within five years of being diagnosed with the disease. If the cancer is caught very early most patients could be cured. But doctors struggle to diagnose early because there are no symptoms until the cancer is in its late stages and has spread to other organs.

Some experts think that doctors should screen people at high risk to find lung cancer before symptoms appear. The national lung-screening trial in America subjected 53,000 current and former heavy smokers to either X-ray or computed-tomography scans every year for three years. Its results, reported in 2011 found that screening with CT scans did save lives.

But there was a problem. Too many of the lumps found during the screening were not cancer. This is known as a false positive. False positives can harm patients who undergo dangerous follow-up procedures such as biopsies, even if they do not have cancer.

It can also affect their mental health and false positives add to the cost of health care. According to new data from the World Health Organisation these harms can be greatly reduced by following a different protocol. Instead of treating all lumps as a positive result doctors are now advised to ignore the smallest nodules and treat them as a negative result. This has halved the rate of false positives.

Out of every 1,000 people who were scanned 356 people required follow-up testing under the old protocol. With the new protocol, that has fallen to 180.

Complications from follow-up testing have also been reduced. These results show promise. Many countries are waiting for the full report of another trial called Nelson before deciding whether to set up fully fledged screening programmes. Preliminary data from the Nelson trial suggest that screening reduces the death rate from lung cancer among high-risk men by 26% and 61% in women.

If a balance between the cost and benefits of screening can be found, lung cancer need no longer be a death sentence.

[CjqNslXUcM]

I stopped smoking a long time ago, pretty stupid to have even started tbh.

[TOMASjBARTON]

I would much rather have a false positive than have a small tumor ignored.

[wrdabro-nldr]

igrotum offers a balanced healing approach. Effective and gentle on the body.

[stenki]

😭My friend's mother just got lung cancer. Luckly she is a nurse and noticed it quite quick. Hope she will be okay

[jorgitomarquez]

Just lost my Dad to lung cancer metastasized to brain. Love you Dad

[Junokaii]

We've come a long way when it comes to treatment of cancer, but it's surprising we haven't had a near cure for it. Problem is, too many different cancers, it being different with each person sometimes, etc.

[mr_hitham-_-]

Lost both of my grandmas cuz of cancer I hate cancer

[walterkersting]

Had a teacher of mine had to get a lung removed; cut his smoking in half!

[mrP]

But in this case treating it as a false negative is much worse, isn't it?

[wh]

I have been doing "Sisha" for the past 4 years at least once or twice a month, shit i think i should stop now, this video somehow scared me.

[cristianomarinelli]

I thought pancreatic and glioblastoma were more deadly

[lisakay]

My brother recently passed from Lung Cancer ( Monster) and spread. I never knew how painful it was.

[ShoukaKizu]

Im a cancer i thought to calm down a cancer

[emankhan]

i really want to remove my lung nudoles 3 mm because it causing me problem i am losing weight and my nail is clubbing, but doctor say we need to evaluate every 6 months but i can wait 😢😭 always have fatigue

[YouChube]

There's a non-invasive lung cancer bronchoscopy "biopsy" ... just can't find the paper RN

[ukelilly]

diagnosed with nsmlc, stage 4, & not in high riak group. Under 50 and a nonsmoker

[spacecolossus]

oh wow, I have for out of these five symptoms

[wanderingquestions]

I worked in radiation oncology and any way one looks at the problem cancer is just ugly. It would be interesting if our government and corporations actually tried to be environmentally conscientious. I was an research intern at the Univ of Utah Medical School - Radiobiology Lab. We experimented on dogs to find where plutonium ended up in their physiology. It was interesting to look at the maps of the fall-out plumes over the USA from 216 above ground nuclear bomb tests that repeatedly dosed our country w/ radiation. You know where most cancers come from? From our contaminated air, food, and water, along w/ stupid things people do that results from corporate greed. Corporations knew what smoking did to people; just one example.

[WontStopCantStop]

Excessive CT scans will also increase your chance of having some kind of cancer due to the unpredictable effects of ionizing radiation. 1 Ct scan of the chest is equivalent to 100 Chest X-rays.

[PamelaNam]

The screening itself lowers the immune system.