Jump to content

LCA and early detection


Recommended Posts

Top News

Study: Scans May Find Lung Cancer Sooner

Updated 8:27 PM ET October 25, 2006


(AP) - A controversial new study offers the strongest evidence yet that screening smokers for lung cancer with computerized chest scans can save lives, much as mammograms do for women with breast cancer.

Doctors have long had doubts that early detection of tumors could improve survival, and also feared that screening would lead to too many false alarms and unnecessary biopsies. Scans are not now recommended, but many smokers have been paying for them on their own for their peace of mind.

The new study strongly suggests there is a survival benefit. But it does not prove the point, because it lacked a comparison group, many scientists say.

In the study, people whose early lung tumors were detected by CT scans and promptly removed had an estimated 10-year survival rate of 92 percent _ much better than the roughly 70 percent who typically survive, and far better than the dismal 5 percent who make it that long after the disease has spread beyond the lungs.

"It gives us greater confidence that screening may really offer advantages in saving lives from lung cancer," said Dr. Robert Smith, director of screening at the American Cancer Society, which was among more than two dozen groups that funded the study.

Even though the study lacked a comparison group, he said, "it's highly unlikely that this completely invalidates the observation of a favorable benefit from early diagnosis."

Lung cancer is the world's top cancer killer. About 174,470 Americans and 1 million people worldwide will be diagnosed with it this year. The vast majority will die, largely because the disease is found too late for treatment to do much good. Only 16 percent of cases in the United States are detected in Stage 1, when tumors are still confined to the lung.

Studies in the 1970s found that screening smokers with regular X-rays did not improve lung cancer survival, and such efforts were largely abandoned until the 1990s, when CT scans were developed.

These sophisticated X-rays produce images of the lungs from many angles and can reveal pea-size growths long before they produce symptoms. Interest in the scans rose in 1999, when Dr. Claudia Henschke of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center published a landmark study showing that they found far more tumors than conventional X-rays did.

Her new study, reported in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine, extends these results to a larger group of people and reports on survival. Dozens of researchers around the world screened 31,567 people at high risk of lung cancer because they were current or former smokers or had been exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke.

Participants were initially screened between 1993 and 2005, and the vast majority came back for repeated screenings about a year later. Thirteen percent of those who were initially screened and 5 percent who had repeated screenings had suspicious spots that required further testing. Biopsies were performed on 535 patients; 484 were diagnosed with lung cancer, including 412 in the early stage. Most had surgery or chemotherapy, and eight were untreated.

Researchers then calculated survival probability using a common statistical tool. The estimated 10-year survival rate, regardless of when the cancer was diagnosed or the type of treatment, was 80 percent.

That increased to 88 percent if the cancer was detected in an early stage, and to 92 percent if such patients had surgery within a month of diagnosis. The eight untreated patients all died within five years of diagnosis.

"When you find it when it's small, you can essentially cure most of them," Henschke said.

The scans cost between $200 and $300, roughly double the price of a mammogram. Insurers are not covering lung scans because the government does not recommend them.

The biggest weakness in the study is that it lacked a comparison group, making it impossible to tell how people would have fared if they didn't receive a CT scan.

Henschke said the general population can be the comparison group, because lung cancer is so common and its survival odds are so well known. But many scientists disagreed, and said her study falls short for this reason.

"It raises great hope for CT screening," but it doesn't prove a benefit, said Dr. Denise Aberle of the University of California, Los Angeles, who is helping conduct a government-funded study that should give more definitive answers. It is screening 53,000 current and former smokers with CT scans or regular chest X-rays to see whether either can cut lung cancer deaths. The Mayo Clinic also is leading a screening study, and others are under way in Europe.

Until there is proof, patients considering screening should ask their doctors about the pros and cons, said Dr. Joan Schiller, a cancer specialist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.

"They need to know that the chances are good that something abnormal will be found," which could lead to false alarms, she said.

In light of the latest results, at least one patient advocacy group _ the Lung Cancer Alliance _ is urging doctors to regularly screen patients for lung cancer.

"This is the most important breakthrough for the lung cancer community that has ever happened," president Laurie Fenton said in a statement.

Research on lung cancer detection may have been delayed because of the stigma associated with the disease _ the notion that smokers brought this on themselves and that little could be done once they developed it, many doctors say. The problem grew worse when X-ray screening studies in the 1970s failed to find a benefit, Dr. Michael Unger of the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Henschke's latest study is a "provocative, welcome salvo in the long struggle to reduce the tremendous burden of lung cancer on society," Unger wrote.


On the Net:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended this conference in NYC on Friday.

This is huge news. The research is there. The studies they did found cancer early, and those people have survived.


It is common sense that these tests would work. I looked at my mothers xray, and couldn't see a thing. I looked at the scan, there is was clear as day. One test works, the other doesn't.

This is the cause I am most passionate about!!

We met Dr. Henschke. She is a remarkable woman. The research is there. We can't let this research become yesterdays news. This is SO important to people at risk!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$300.00 Per person for each scan done the insurance companies pay. 300 Million people in this country. smokers and non smokers, old and young , Male and Female.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$300.00 Per person for each scan done the insurance companies pay. 300 Million people in this country. smokers and non smokers, old and young , Male and Female.

In fairness to the study and what they said...the CT scan is not in this case for EVERY AMERICAN. The doctors at the conference are saying that the target group is really the ones at risk. 30 pack years of smoking.

I now have a "family history", but I would not be someone that this study says to get an annual CT. The kid who smoked in high school and quit, not the person for the scan. The person who smoked two packs a day for 15 years, quit at 35 and is now approaching 50. This person (according to the target group stats) is a person who should get the scan.

How many smokers/former smokers with 30 pack years in their life are there? That's who the insurance cos' should pay for (or the tax money on cigarettes, but that is a political discussion for another thread).

But I will still go for a CT chest scan (I've never even smoked a ham much less a cigarette) when I turn 45 and again at 50 just because...better safe than sorry.

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.