Jump to content

In clarification:


Recommended Posts

I have been reading a lot of posts where people claim that lung cancer is the leading cancer (as in cases per year) among men and women. This is not true. There are more cases of breast cancer in women than lung cancer per year. There are more new cases of prostate cancer than lung cancer in men per year.

If you're interested on where I found the information I'm about to share, go to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/stt/stt_0.asp and download the PDF file - it's 64 pages.

Some information from page 4

Estimated new cancer cases and deaths for US, 2005:

Site............New Cases......Est. Deaths


Lung & bronchus..172,570...........163,510



Colon, Breast and Prostate cancer are all screened for. Bloodtests, stool tests, manual tests...there are no yearly screenings for the rest of the myriad of cancers in our world.

I think, to some extent, we have become "them" in some ways. "Them" being those that seek cures for a single cancer. Lung cancer is not the cancer that has the highest morbidity rate, take a peak at pancreatic cancer.

Point is, these are dreaded statistics, NOT actual people. Again, the lung cancer statistics are based on numbers from a study at least four years old as are some of the others.

I don't think lung cancer is any better or any worse than any other cancer. I think it is underfunded. There are many other cancers on the list that are underfunded, as well.

Smoking stigma surely does impact the amount spent on lung cancer research as the leading cause of lung cancer is listed as smoking. To that fact, most of the money spent by States toward the lung cancer fight goes to smoking cessation public announcements and telling kids not to smoke.

Let's not be elitists. The fight is for a cure for cancer, ALL cancer, not just one or two. I know people with other cancers, I want them to be cured as much as I want to be cured. The question is, how do we best do that? What is the way to get more money to research in the cancers that "aren't important"? Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with you that we need a cure for all cancer and that funding is a major issue.

Pancreatic cancer has a bit higher mortality rate but lung cancer affects 5 times more people and has almost an equally high mortality rate as pancreatic cancer. Perhaps this is what many people have been referring to?

Regardless, any death from any type of cancer is one too many. Every single person I know has been affected by some type of cancer. It is horrible.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of this is:

Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer of both women and men. Each year lung cancer kills more people than breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer combined.

This is stated in NCI, ALCASE, ACS information. I guess it's all what your reading. I always refer to it as the NUMBER ONE CANCER KILLER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


It IS the number one cancer killer. It is NOT the cancer with the highest morbidity, it is NOT the cancer that has the highest incidence in our society. The information I referred to (and linked to) is from the American Cancer Society.

It is better to share correct information and not assumed half-truths when attempting to educate others on the plight of cancer survivors, plain and simple.

Just da facts, mon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there you have it! Facts are Facts! I wasn't trying to correct you, just saying how I refer to this issue is all when trying to make a point about lung cancer not getting the funding we could use. As well as bringing awareness to Lung Cancer.

Most people are SHOCKED when you tell them Lung Cancer Kills more then........etc.etc. The first thing they say is: No Breast cancer is. Well..... then I say to them, noooooo, more people are dx.d with breast cancer, but more die from lung cancer then breast cancer. Well, you get my point. Most people honestly don't pay attention until the big C knocks at there door. Make's sense to me!!!

I'm always interested in getting more and more educated. Thanks for sharing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people are SHOCKED when you tell them Lung Cancer Kills more then........etc.etc. The first thing they say is: No Breast cancer is. Well..... then I say to them, noooooo, more people are dx.d with breast cancer, but more die from lung cancer then breast cancer. Well, you get my point. Most people honestly don't pay attention until the big C knocks at there door. Make's sense to me!!! (Connie)

Ditto from me.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you, Connie. Most of the time I see people refer to the fact that more people actually die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. I guess that might lead to the incorrect assumption that it is also the most common type of cancer, which as Snowflake points out, it is not.

A sad thing I came across the other day in relation to the funding issue....I was looking for a breast cancer site for one of my Dad's friends, and I found one with a message board similar to ours....browsed a few of the posts to check out what it was like, and was disheartened to see one entitled 'why does breast cancer take all the funding from the other cancers?'. I read the post and was ashamed to read about a lung cancer survivor vilifying the pink ribbon and accusing the website in question of basically stealing funds that might otherwise be used for lung cancer :shock: !!! It was quite a hateful and vindictive post, and while I certainly felt sympathy and empathy for this woman's situaion, I could not believe that she logged on to a support site for breast cancer to vent her frustration! However, it was nicely reassuring to read the responses to her post, which almost universally expressed sadness about this woman's diagnosis, and then suggested ways that she might try and improve the funding situation for lung cancer rather than attack a another group of cancer survivors for having the good fortune to have a more 'popular' cancer.

It was interesting reading!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW Karen, that story is aweful!! I know people do that, but my goodness... That's just sad and wrong!

I do wish they would (they being NCI, ACS, ETC...) would be more sensitive to all the other cancers and the cancer issues as they are to breast cancer, but I wouldn't take anything away from the breast cancer efforts that they have fought to get. A bunch of woman got together and pitched a witch and asked for funding for breast cancer, and by golly it worked. (good for them)! But it is hard at times to hear over and over and over that they are doing this walk or that walk or this thing or that thing, for breast cancer, when we can't seem to get on first base with Lung Cancer issues. I know, I have been trying to bring Awareness to lung cancer for the last 6 years. But, it's just going to take time. Thank God I still have some time left! :wink:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my 2 cent's on this debate..The reason Lung Cancer is so underfunded partly is it is not a politically correct desease as most of you know when a person who you do not really know hear's some one has Lung Cancer the first word's out of there mouth is i'm sorry to hear that and did they smoke..With all the attack's on smoker's and the Tobacco companies this last decade most people i'm afraid feel that lung Cancer was self caused. Just my thought's ......


Link to comment
Share on other sites


You're right, but how to change the mindset?

It's not common knowledge that lung cancer strikes non-smokers, as well. Prior to my diagnosis, I didn't know that non-smokers could get lung cancer. The knowledge is not out there - one of the highest numbers I read of the percentage of lung cancer survivors who have never smoked was 12.75%. That's NOT an occasional case here and there!

It really doesn't matter if the patient is a smoker or a non-smoker, a cure needs to be found and a way to detect it early.

I guess it would be one kind of ignorance were it non-smokers touting that lung cancer is a smokers' disease and they bring it on themselves, but it's not just non-smokers who spread that idea, it's smokers, as well.

So the question is, how do we change the collective view? How do we get people to sit up and take notice like the Pink Ribbon Ladies have done?

My opinion is that we need to take the "smoking" out of the issue. Why? Well, every time I hear of anything aimed at lung cancer, most of the $$ goes to smoking cessation projects and presentations to kids about the evils of smoking...I think the money toward smoking cessation needs to be cut and added to the research budget. If not everyone with the disease is a smoker, maybe some of the smokers didn't get it because of their smoking...hmmmm, what a concept!

We need a cure, the "cure" to quitting smoking can be found on someone else's dime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Added two cents. What about all the people that DO smoke & DON'T get lung cancer? (just a thought) My Pulm Doc said many moons ago, "If everyone quit smoking today, we would STILL have lung cancer 50, 60, etc years down the road. And having said that, here's a thought: "Wouldn't it really be NICE IF lung cancer was ONLY caused from smoking?" At least THEN we would REALLY know it's the only cause, and then we really could just BLAME smoking for lung cancer.

I think it is sad that those that NEVER smoked have to suffer the kick in the face for those of us who did or do. And I feel bad that ALL cancers take a back seat to funding and awareness. It really isn't just lung cancer that doesn't get funding & recognition.

I have several friends who are Breast cancer survivors and even THEY are sick of hearing breast cancer this and breast cancer that. With all the money they have gotten over the years, they should be a lot closer to a crue then they are. (in my opinion)! HOWEVER, they sure have nice fancy offices to go too! Guess I would rather have a cure, but that's me!

Then on the other side, maybe all this recognition and funding that breast cancer gets, just MIGHT benefit us lung cancer patitents some day. WHO KNOWS?

My mom always said, "Life isn't always fair"! :roll:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

After Earl died I had a very long talk with his onc. Maybe he should have been as attentive when Earl was alive but that is a story for another day.

We got to talking about how breast, prostate and colon cancer are not what they used to be - they are very curable. I said, well that makes sense with mammograms, prostate blood tests (PSA) and colonoscopies. Onc. said wrong on the colonoscopies. Onc. said that the drugs that are really helping colon cancer are drugs that they thought would help lung cancer. So, yes, funding in any area of cancer research may have an effect on another cancer.

Please let there be many breakthroughs - cancer is a lousy disease and the treatments are no fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll try and word this so as to not show my ignorance too badly (you know the old open mouth insert foot). For one thing when ever any one bring's up did they smoke i now tell them that non smoker's now make up 50% of lung cancer victim's and that usually end's that discussion.

Not that i'm supporting smoking but during the 30's American's smoked more than any other group of people and our life span's were growing, now with that being said i was told along time ago when i first started smoking ( i no longer smoke) that filtered Cig's were not good as it would cause smoker's to inhale deeper. Also Japan which has the highest percentage of smoker's (in the world) does not have near as high of lung Cancer incidence as we do...

I have no fast and sure answer's but like Connieb said maybe all the research being done in other cancer's such as breast Cancer may end up benifiting all cancer's including this beast....

One last remark on the political correctness comment i made . I trained and coached amateur boxing for 20 year's and in the 80's the attack against the Sport was so intensified and became so politically incorrect that the News Paper's and some Goverment Official's almost succeeded in destroying the Sport. Not one time in those year's of constant attack's did the very people who had the stat's (insurance Co.)ever speak out in defense of Amateur Boxing even tho they had all the stat's that proved , Now this will be hard for some to believe but Tennis had higher injuries than Boxing and so did swimming etc:Boxing was very low on the list of risk and injuries but because it was now politically incorrect it was anathema to speak out publically in defense of the sport...And yes where as once i had as high as 60 kid's boxing and not running the street's i soon was lucky to get 5 0r 6. Just thought i'd share and by the way i NEVER CHARGED A GYM FEE TO THE KID'S......Larry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice story Larry. Thanks for sharing that.

You know what really upsets me more then the fact that breast cancer gets all the (so called Glory)? You know all those BIG fingers that jump into the Funding Money Pots that are and were designated for Research, but once the BIG fingers take there cuts of the research fund money there isn't much FUND MONEY left to DO the RESEARCH! Does that make sense? I guess I could have worded it easier! :roll: And this pretty much is the way our world is going. :?:shock::roll:

Oh well, it's always SOMETHING! :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm late getting on this train, but wanted to offer up a couple of thoughts:

#1 on the 'smoking stigma....' Research is finding more and more that obesity is linked to cancer... Yet, when people are diagnosed with those cancers they aren't automatically asked, "Do you overeat frequently?" I think the stigma is ridiculous and if THAT is the reason for underfunding, we have got to help people see past the cigarrettes.

#2 I have been thinking how cool it would be to get up a walk or a fundraising project of some sort for "Cancers" in general, and especially those that are under-represented. LC, pancreatic, adrenal, etc. I wonder if people affected by those who were able and wanting to banded together if the voices together could be powerful?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.