Treebywater Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 And I mean that seriously... I've read the articles that are coming out about the CT Scans and screening for LC and I heard a blip on the radio about it (we don't watch T.V. so I haven't seen the coverage there). What I don't understand is this: There is a huge focus in the coverage I've come across about lung cancers that could be found that wouldn't necessarily grow fast and/or result in death.... So my question is: WHY does that MATTER so much???? As deadly as this disease is.... don't you want to get cancer--any cancer OUT in case it COULD be deadly? And is that the case in so many cases? The way they make it sound most findings would be such... Yet, We all know that over half of LC cases are found in their later stages.... Obviously there is a need for this screening. Obviously early stage things--harmless or otherwise are growing and spreading and killing people.... aren't they? So WHY are they nitpicking over this, "What if it is slow-growing?" issue? I totally get the issue of the sensitivity of the Lung. Obviously Lung biopsies are riskier and more involved than breast or other biopsies. And I think that point is right to be raised. But this other point about these "harmless tumors" just... seems to downplay the seriousness of the disease to me. I would hate to have people see this report and as a result think that lung cancer is often slow growing and nothing to worry about. Don't get me wrong--HOOYAH for the study and HOORAY for the coverage, but I kept reading that and reading that and going, "What??" Does anybody with a fuller understanding of the issue have any insight? Or is this as ludicrous to you guys as it sounds to me? 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.