Elaine Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 As you may have read, I am writing a feature article on the stealth of many lung cancers and arguing for early screening. I just read a study that reads in part: The seven-year baseline study was led by Claudia I. Henschke, MD, who organized the Early Lung Cancer Action Project in 1992. Henschke’s goal was to see whether chest X-rays or low-dose CT scans were better at detecting early lung cancers. In all, 1,000 symptom-free volunteers who were at least 60 years old and who were at high risk of lung cancer were enrolled. All patients had a history of cigarette smoking. Each received a chest X-ray as well as a low-dose CT scan. Among the 1,000 participants, 233 patients had a positive result (one or more nodules present) and 767 had a negative result (no nodules or cancer detected) using the CT scan. The chest X-ray was significantly less reliable. Using a chest X-ray for screening, only 68 of the same patients had a positive result (compared with 233) and only seven cases of cancer were detected, compared to 27 by CT scan. I also have read that early lc is especially difficult to detect in women by chest xray. My questions are: Besides the smallness of some tumors, what are other reasons that chest xrays don't pick up as many tumors? I do know that chest xrays can't really see tumors/nodules when they are confined in a bronchus or in the rather unique instances where the tumors are confined to the trachea. What other places can lc tumors be hiding from xray? And why in women, especially, are they hard to pick up on chest xray? LOL, I think I had another related question and I can't think of it! thanks again! Elaine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.