Jump to content

Article in Houston Chronicle, 9/2/2003


Guest cq

Recommended Posts

An article was published in the September 2nd edition of the Houston Chronicle, titled "Nation's war on cancer stalling," which contains a statement from Dr. Kent Osborne, director of the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, who was quoted as saying, of lung cancer: "We're investing a lot of resources in trying to diagnose early ... when in fact all you've got to do is stop smoking and you won't get it."

Here's a link to the article: http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/health/2079194

I wrote a letter to the paper and copied Dr. Osborne. I found a Dr. Kent Osborne at Bayor College of Medicine: kosborne@bcm.tmc.edu

Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael

"were investing a lot of resources in trying to diagnose early..when in fact all you got to do is stop smoking and you won't get it"

I wasn't aware that we're investing a lot of resources in trying to diagnose lung cancer early. I know that this is being done with breast cancer, colon cancer and prostrate cancer with good results through early detection. I haven't seen a large scale emphasis encouraging long term smokers and former smokers to get a CT Lung Scan. This test at a private diagnostic center costs about $425 and it should be reimbursable. This test can detect a tumor the size of a grain of rice which would place the patient in a very early stage and greatly increase the chances of survival. Anyone who has smoked two packs a day for at least 20 years regardless of age should be encouraged to take this test. It takes just 5 minutes. If every long term smoker and former smoker would take this test the 5 year survival rate for lung cancer survivers would increase dramatically. To tell smokers don't smoke and you won't get lung cancer is not the answer. We reimburse tests for colon, breast and prostate detection but not lung cancer. Until this test is encouraged and reimbursed smokers must exercise basic common sense. If you can spend $3,000 a year on cigarettes then you can afford $425 for this test. Telling a smoker to quit is a lot easier said than done. It's like telling someone whose diet is high in saturated fat to become a vegetarian so they won't get colon cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assumed that Dr. Osborne is talking about the National Lung Screening Trial (http://www.cancer.gov/nlst). Some think the trial is a waste of money, but for reasons different to Dr. Osborne: some think the usefulness and efficacy of CT as a screening method has already been proven.

As for the cost of a scan, check with your local hospital or cancer center. Brigham and Women's in Boston will do a low-dose helical CT scan of the lungs for $350, last I knew. Also, last I knew, they required a doctor's referral (that is, you can't just walk in off the street).

Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and if you don't have lung cancer, the NLST is a good way to perhaps get scans, for free. You have to be 55 or older. I would have participated but I'm not there yet. I'm getting a yearly scan for the next two years anyway. After that, and assuming the scans are negative, I'm hoping either scanning will have been accepted as a legitimate screening method or that some other method will have been developed.

Christine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

The sad situation is that a lot of people don't think to have these tests done or are not aware of them. When we go in for a physical, bronchitis, coughs and etc., the doctors don't send us for any tests. They just hand you prescriptions and pain killers. You tell them what you want and they give it to you. I know back in 1999, I had bronchitis so bad, I couldn't hardly breathe. I didn't associate LC and bronchitis, doc gave me three /four different anibiotics til I finally started to get a little better. It took me 3/4 months to start feeling better. If doctor would have given me chest x-ray, maybe this diease would have been caught earlier and surgery would have been an option for me. I know it is my fault that I smoked, but I also blame alot of these doctors who either don't have the knowledge to diagnose properly, they only look at the $$$ it costs to find out what is wrong with a patient. Then sometimes it takes too long for them to find out and it is too late. It is sad but true how are health care system is faultering. A lot of these doctors are just out right lazy too. I know, my husband works in the health care industry, nucleur medicine (engineer). He repairs the equipment in a lot of the hospitals in Southern California, Nevada in their Nucluer Med Departments. This is where your bone scans, Pet scans and etc. are done. The condition of the equipment at some of the hospitals and clinics is horrible and not taken care of properly because they don't want to spend the money to fix them properly. Quick fix, put a bandaid on it and continue to do all these scans that are not accurate. It is so sad that the almighty dollar has so much power over healing and curing people. Bottom line is, how much money are we making, instead of how may lives are we saving...... Sorry to sound so negative, I apologize, I don't mean to offend anyone. It is just frustrating to think that there are so many people with this disease, especially the young and the people who have never smoked and that we are not finding a "Cure" fast enough........

Sorry for all the rambling. Sad but true.

God Bless and praying for a "CURE" for all of us.......

Karen

******************

Dx'd 3-03 , nsc, 3a, radiation, taxol/carbo 3-03 to 5-03, restarted chemo 7-23-03 to present (3 wk cycles)

By his stripes we are healed....Keep the faith, I truly believe, God is good

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a national study going on now and I agree that is what he is probably referring to, but the point is being missed here. What about all those people who don't smoke, never smoked, or quit years ago, and even those that still do - it's the old "they deserve it" attitude and I know that a lot of us have accepted that too, but to write off hundreds of thousands of people who are and will be effected until the time comes, and it would take many years for the smoking risk to be erradicated from our society . Early detection is now the best chance for survival. I guess he doesn't think they are worth the effort or investment. Thank you for posting this and I hope they hear from many of us.

Jenny[/i]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael

"It's the old "they deserve it" attitude"

This is exactly the attitude of Doctors and those in our society who never smoked. "You made your bed, now die in it." This is the reason why smokers and former smokers must take complete control of there health and make sure they take Lung Cancer Detection Tests. I'm a very long term former smoker and have taken the test every year since 2000 and without a doctors prescription. However, very few smokers are aware of this test and doctors have kept it a secret. Prior to 2000 is was not available large scale. In NYC there were only 4 machines. Today, it's available to everyone. Doctor prefer to rely on X-Ray Machines. The CT Lung Scan can detect lung disease SIX TIMES earlier. We must get the word out to smokers and former smokers that this test is available and at a norminal cost and that they should take it at least every two years although every year is better. I also plan on having another CT Heart Scan (had one 2 years ago) since I was not pleased with results although not life threatening. This is another test your doctor will never tells you about. They still keep pushing the treadmill stress test.

One more comment: I had a colonoscopy in Feb 2002. It was fine and the doctor said, "this test is good for 10 years." WHAT? 10 Years? Absolute Nonsense. I plan to take one every three years. Prevention is the best medicine. Remember, in the medical establishment, there's NO profit in prevention. The profit is in treating illnesses. When it comes to your health TRUST NO ONE. I once read that the 4th leading cause of deaths in the USA is Doctors/Drugs. Although I can't prove it I'm convinced it's much higher. Ten years ago I was a caregiver to someone with colon cancer (didn't survive) and now someone with Lung Cancer. I've also had several close friends who died of massive heart attacks who never knew they had a problem and were never told of the CT Heart Scan which costs the same as a lung scan and is done at the same time and also takes 5 minutes. These are the reasons why I have complete control of my health and have very little trust and confidence in doctors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fires me up for another reason--I am aggravated about it for the guilt it tries to impose on those who have smoked, but for my own case, the fact that I didn't smoke delated my diagnosis because it was taken for granted that lung cancer wasn't the problem. I am not advocating that everyone get regularly CT scans regardless of their risk, but DOCTORS at least should know the warning signs and know that not all lung cancer has anything to do with smoking, or even any of the known risk factors.

Becky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't take anymore of these arrogant doctors that say and apparently think that not smoking or stopping is going to cure lung cancer. That is such and erroneous statement. There are so many people out there that never smoked that has this terrible disease. I look back on my smoking history and realize that there were many other factors that could have caused damage to my cells. Such as working in an area where there was a lot of diesel fuel poluting the air or the continued use of insecticides in a small enclosed area, or even ongoing emotional and mental stress for years of my life. Everyone puts such an emphases on smoking and lung cancer: I truly believe that there are many, many factors that contribute to cell and dna damage. I think the statistics are that 10% of all smokers get lung cancer. What about the other 90%? Why are they immune if smoking is such a big factor in cancers? I know that 85% of those that have lung cancer are or were smokers, I wonder if this is the only connection between us, or just the one that was most looked at? There is no doubt in my mind that smoking is not good for anyone, but we did not ask for this disease or in any case speaking just for me I did not ask for this disease. Nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Michael

I went to my barber in April (never smoked and is 54) and his large black head of hair was gone. His shop is located across the street from a major tunnel in NYC where he has been for 19 years that is used by cars, trucks and buses. During the warm days he would leave the shop door open. Imagine all the poison fumes he inhaled during these years. He informed me that he had inoperable lung cancer. Now this is what upsets me. Five years prior (1998) during a routine physical he asked his Doctor for a chest xray. The Doctors response: "your lungs are clear and you never smoked. You don't need an xray." The doctor was aware of his place of business. In February 2003, he went to another Doctor and asked for an xray and was given one. The results were devastating and he's angry. Angry that he had been refused an xray in 1998. Now this is a nice but rather simple man who had complete trust and confidence in his Doctor.

What a mistake. Knowing that his patient was exposed to large amounts of Carbon Monoxide this doctor should have given him an xray every

year or better yet a CT Lung Scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, devil's advocate here. Most of this is due to health care costs and insurance rules. Most doctor's won't order tests without symptoms because it isn't "recommended" and won't be paid even if a person is at risk. It has to be up to us to insist on these things and then be willing to pay out of pocket to have them done. Most people just don't think that way unless they have a good reason to be concerned. Also, by the time a problem shows up on an x-ray, it is usually advanced. Has anyone here ever had a CT ordered as a preventative tool by a doctor? What do you think the cost to our health insurance would be if this was routinely done for all smokers or anyone else that may be at risk? Even with smoking the odds just aren't that high. So it's a percentages thing and a purely economical one. Now I think people at risk should do this. Now I know that a chest x-ray may not be sufficient. I suggested a chest x-ray at my last physical and was told not necessary. I should have insisted to have it at my own expense, but didn't. Later, a chest x-ray done because of symptoms did find my cancer, but it was already the size of a fist and being that it was small cell, it may have not shown up at all on an earlier x-ray. I consider myself lucky, but I might have been luckier if I'd had a more pro-active doctor. The sad fact is that we cannot depend on our doctors to always do what is in our best interests and that we have to educate ourselves and take charge. Be vigilant and use your doctor as a tool, not the final authority. Bless us all!

Jenny

P.S. I did ask how long they thought the cancer had been there, months or years, and he thought months. Anyone else have info on how long cancer is usually present before detected? Very curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote them a letter - text is below:

I'm writing in response to the article entitled "Nation's war on cancer stalling" in the 9/3/03 online edition of the Houston Chronicle.

Dr. Kent Osborne, director of the Breast Center at Baylor College of Medicine, demonstrates common judgmental attitudes and factual errors that are all too well-known to people with lung cancer in the article. Dr. Osborne's dismissal of lung cancer as a disease that can be eradicated if people simply stopped smoking is both inaccurate and offensive. He overestimates the proportion of lung cancer cases related to cigarette smoking at 95% (the American Cancer Society estimates 87%), and he seems to believe that stopping smoking eliminates the risk of lung cancer. While the lungs begin to repair themselves as soon as one quits smoking, the lifetime risk of lung cancer remains elevated in former smokers. The more years of abstinence, the less the risk becomes, but the risk remains higher than in people who have never smoked. This is why it is so vital that young people never take up smoking.

Perhaps most offensive in Dr. Osborne's cavalier statements is that he seems to believe that stopping smoking is a simple matter. Nicotine is a powerfully addictive substance, and lung cancer is a disease of older persons who began smoking decades ago, when cigarette smoking was mass-marketed as chic and even healthful. Young women began smoking to lose weight, unaware of its addictive properties. A famous advertisement for Camels from the 1940's reported that "More doctors smoke Camels!" Even now, advertisements feature thin, young, vital, attractive people enjoying a life accessorized with sports cars, laughter and cigarettes. Cigarette advertising sells lies, targeting the young who still believe in their own invulnerability, and making lifetime nicotine addicts of them.

Finally, Dr. Osborne appears unaware that there is not a perfect cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer. People who have never smoked, never been exposed to smoke, and never worked near noxious chemicals still get lung cancer. People who have done all of the above escape the disease. And no one really knows why, only that surely there are factors aside from smoking that influence susceptibility to lung cancer.

Misinformation of the kind Dr. Osborne has perpetrated only damages efforts by the sincerely concerned to eradicate this awful disease. As director of the breast center, Dr. Osborne probably knows that funding for breast cancer research greatly outstrips that for lung cancer, although fewer people die from breast cancer. Lung cancer is the #1 cancer killer among men and women, and deserves the same research dollars and commitment to screening and effective treatment that "more popular" cancers like breast and prostate receive.

- Teresa Tarnowski Goodell, RN, CNS

clinical nurse specialist and research consultant

Portland, Oregon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael , about the barber----- Deisel fumes are 300 times more carcinogenic than gas fumes, you mentioned trucks-. The next generation of victims- our kids. Why you say ? All the kids are bused to school in vehicles run on diesel, now people have their groceries , mail, packages etc delivered in the neighborhood by diesel trucks, more trucks on the highways, more highways etc etc. Why do they allow diesel ? Money, just like the government allow tobacco companys to add carcinogens to cigarettes, money, more tax revenue. My 2 cents worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was inspired and wrote a letter to the Doctor and paper myself!

Here is the text:

Dr. Osborne,

I recently read the article published in the Houston Chronicle and was saddened by your comments on Lung Cancer.

..."If it wasn't for lung cancer in women, (the rates would) really be on the decline," said Osborne, who estimates that 95 percent of lung cancers are related to smoking. "We're investing a lot of resources in trying to diagnose early ... when in fact all you've got to do is stop smoking and you won't get it."...

While it is true that the majority of lung cancer patients smoked at some point in their lives, in actuality, 15% have never smoked at all. I am a 33 year old mother to a six year old son -- and I am one of them. I was diagnosed with Stage IIIA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer this past January. There is no history of lung cancer in my family and I have never smoked or lived with a smoker in my life. There is such an existing stigma associated with this disease and comments like yours, especially when coming from a doctor, do nothing short of perpetuate the stigma and negative connotation towards this disease. The sad fact is that "smoker", "former-smoker" or "non-smoker", the end result is the same -- Lung Cancer is the number one cancer-killer in our country. We should all be working together to find better treatments and a cure for this epidemic and not place the blame solely on the smoker's shoulders. The philosophy that "they made their bed, now they can die in it" is not acceptable. Even if every smoker out there stopped smoking today, it would take decades to see results. That would be decades too late for hundreds of thousands of smokers and non-smokers alike.

As Director of a breast cancer center, I am sure you are aware that breast cancer support, funds and research heavily outweigh the attention given towards lung cancer support, despite the fact that deaths from lung cancer FAR surpass deaths from breast cancer. Lung cancer deserves the same commitment towards treatment/finding a cure that breast cancer has received over the past decade. It also deserves a change in attitude -- and that attitude change needs to start with the doctors.

Heather A. Rudnick

Marlton, NJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! I just heard back from the Houston Chronicle and they asked for permission to publish my letter in the "letters to the editor" section of the paper. She said my letter brought up some very good points about generalizations perpetuating the stigma associated w/ LC and she felt it deserved a wider audience.

I'm really excited! Hopefully we can change some people's perception of this disease.

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.

Guest
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.