Things that make me go hmmmmm.......

[Andrea]

I was talking about lung cancer today during lunch (so what else is new ). I was acatually excusing myself from the table in the cafeteria to call my mom. Anyway, I was with two witnesses and my boss. A witness asked me about lung cancer and I was asked a question based on what I told him about lung cancer................

Why is the survival rate of lung cancer lower than other cancers? Why do more women die of that than gynecological cancers?

I did not know how to respond besides lack of funding and smoking stigma. He said "well if more people are dying each year of that cancer than other cancers, it makes no sense why there would not be the same amount or more people researching the disease. Unless it is b/c it is a breathing organ?"

And it made me wonder, WHY. Why does lung cancer and pancreas cancer for example have such lower rates than other cancers. It makes no sense to me. I wish I could understand. Is there an answer to articulate?

[Andrea B.]

Dear Andrea,

I can tell you from my research that a couple of the reasons for the low survival rate on lung cancer...due to the size of the lungs the disease has already spread prior to diagnosis or any symptoms are experienced. This is why preventive measures such as chest xrays and Spiral CT scans are necessary. Also, due to the way the lung cells are made up (to help fight off all the toxins we breathe in) they are very resilent to chemo (the lung cells see the chemo as another toxin and it fights it off). This is my "nonmedical" understanding of why lung cancer is so low in the survival rate. Also, I think the stigma is a huge factor. This disease needs more funding!!!!

Hugs to you.

[Jana_W]

Hi Andrea

From my knowledge, the survival rates for lung cancer are so poor due to the fact that the disease is predominantly diagnosed at a late stage. People are able to have lung cancer for several years before having any symptoms, so there is really no way of knowing they have it. My mum's cancer was picked up on a routine chest film, and to this day she remains symptom free, despite being a Stage IV.

I am not certain that extensive routine chest x-rays have shown to provide any survival advantage for lung cancer patients. I know this has been studied in Australia and it is NOT recommended as a screening tool for lung cancer (unlike Pap smears for cervical cancer). I am not certain of the reasons.

I worked for eighteen months for the Cancer Foundation of WA as a project co-ordinator for the WA Cancer Staging Project and I will see if I can find any articles which explain in greater detail why mass screening for lung cancer using chest x-rays is not recommened.

Hope this has helped you somewhat

Jana

xxx

[Jana_W]

Hi, just me again. In my last post I mentioned that I was not certain about the survival advantage of having chest films done. I didn't really write that correctly. Of course we know that the earlier a cancer is picked up the greater the chance of survival. I meant that on a population level, mass screening for lung cancer using chest x-rays has not been shown to be a cost effective screening program (unlike cervical cancer for which pap smears have been shown to be a cost effective screening program). Sorry for that!!!!!! Hope that bit makes more sense now.

Jana

xxxx

[Andrea]

Thanks That all makes sense. What still boggles my mind and I could not explain is that even if NED arrives, let's say you are stage III and it is co nfined to chest area, there is an 80% chance of recurrance the first two years and overall survival is still low. Yet with other cancers, when NED comes, there are higher statistics. I do know our statistics are outdated, as the doctors told me, those getting treatment now are the NEW statistics b/c treatment has changed. It just does not seem logical to me.

There probably isn't an easy answer, but when I have too much time to think of questions people ask me, it makes my mind go. After lunch yest was so boring a juror fell asleep wtih her mouth wide open (my mom does that too) and the court clerk passed her a cup of water to wake her up. So I had plenty of time to ponder how lung cancer works and the only co nclusion I ame up wi th is that I don't like it.

[john]

Another theory I have read is that the lung cells have a lot of survival

mechanisms in them.

Since cancer in theory is supposed to be a genetic mutation, the cancer cell gains all the survival benefits of the normal cells. Kind of darwinian.

This makes them extremely hard to kill and many times they be come MDR (Multiple drug resistent)

[john]

Another reason, which essential adds to the point of not being detected early

Lung cancer is especially deadly because the rich network of blood vessels that deliver oxygen from the lungs to the rest of the body can also spread cancer very quickly