Ohio Clinic Makes Important Step Forward in Lung Cancer Detection

[sandgk]

The Cleveland Clinic has found a means to use the chemical signature in the breath of those afflicted with Lung Cancer as a means of detection of the disease.

This promises a future in which much earlier detection of the disease becomes possible. Such a move of Lung Cancer from the column of detectable only once widespread to early detection is a vitally important step forward toward effective treatment.

Breath Test for Lung Cancer Possible

​

WASHINGTON FEB 26, 2007 (Reuters) - A simple breath test can sometimes detect lung cancer in patients even in the early stages of the disease, proving in principle that the idea might work, U.S. researchers reported on Sunday.
The breath test device, the size of a coin, detected three-quarters of the people with lung cancer who the researchers tested. But it had too many false positives -- meaning it indicated lung cancer in people who did not have it.
Nonetheless, researchers said their study, published in the journal Thorax, showed that such a test is possible in principle if someone developed a more accurate version.
"The unique chemical signature of the breath of patients with lung cancer can be detected with moderate accuracy by a colorimetric sensor array," the researchers wrote.
Catching lung cancer early, when it is still treatable, could save tens of thousands of lives a year in the United States alone. It is the most common form of malignant cancer and also kills the most people, in part because it is not usually detected until it has spread.

 

[tibor75]

Great news. More dumbass smokers can live longer.

 

[sandgk]

Great news. More dumbass smokers can live longer.

You know damned well that lung cancer does not only afflict smokers.

 

[tibor75]

You know damned well that lung cancer does not only afflict smokers.

yeah, only 90%.

 

[sandgk]

yeah, only 90%.

That according to the Lung Alliance is the low end estimate, 85% would be the high end. That 85-90% is also broken down between those who gave up smoking early versus those who continued to smoke till the first detection of cancer.

Aside from smoking (or in the case of as many as 15% of patients not smoking) care as a medical professional to name the other leading correlated demographic profile for lung cancer? It is age.
The older you are, the more likely to suffer lung cancer. In fact, as fewer people, year by year, now do smoke one might look forward to fewer lung cancer cases. Yet, these cases will still, unless detected earlier be deadly.
Considering that lung cancer causes the death of more Americans than any of prostate, breast, colon liver kidney cancer and melanoma combinedI would think this news is a cause for joy - at least amongst the medical profession.

 

[tibor75]

That according to the Lung Alliance is the low end estimate, 85% would be the high end. That 85-90% is also broken down between those who gave up smoking early versus those who continued to smoke till the first detection of cancer.

Aside from smoking (or in the case of as many as 15% of patients not smoking) care as a medical professional to name the other leading correlated demographic profile for lung cancer? It is age.
The older you are, the more likely to suffer lung cancer. In fact, as fewer people, year by year, now do smoke one might look forward to fewer lung cancer cases. Yet, these cases will still, unless detected earlier be deadly.
Considering that lung cancer causes the death of more Americans than any of prostate, breast, colon liver kidney cancer and melanoma combinedI would think this news is a cause for joy - at least amongst the medical profession.

sure it's good news. i'd rather there be good news regarding cancers that aren't due to the ignorance of the person getting them.

why should there be a distinction between those who quit and those still smoking? Both groups only have themselves to blame.

The article gives some false hope. Still appear to be too many false positives.

 

[sandgk]

sure it's good news. i'd rather there be good news regarding cancers that aren't due to the ignorance of the person getting them.

Well, in this day and age, I agree that sufficient facts are out there to prevail on the common sense of the young not to begin smoking. At worst you are rolling the dice, at best you have acquired an expensive vice.

why should there be a distinction between those who quit and those still smoking? Both groups only have themselves to blame.

That breakdown in the afflicted population is sent by the Lung Alliance (I think) more as a warning against smoking than for any other reason.

The article gives some false hope. Still appear to be too many false positives.

False hope in that it is not ready for immediate roll out, yes, I agree. The Cleveland Clinic representatives are honest enough about the 28% false positive rate. They acknowledge the need to improve the precision and accuracy of the test. You might actually say that the test would, if rolled out in this state, give false fear. Still, a good move forward.

 

[tibor75]

False fear is the least of its problems. False positives lead to unnecessary tests which can lead to complications.

People thought x-rays would work in smokers. They didn't.

They thought Cat scans would work. They didn't.

So, I'm not sure if this test will pan out. The problem wtih lung cancer is that when it's detected by any test, it's often too late to do anything about it (or anything that would increase survival).

 

[Taosman]

from the CDC.
Statistics

More people die from lung cancer than any other type of cancer. This is true for both males and females. In 2002 (the most recent year for which statistics are currently available), lung cancer accounted for more deaths than breast cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancer combined.36 In that year,

• 100,099 males and 80,163 females were diagnosed with lung cancer
• 90,121 males and 67,509 females died from lung cancer* 36

Aside from non-melanoma skin cancer, lung cancer is the second most common cancer for all males in the United States. Among females, lung cancer is the second most common cancer among white and American Indian/Alaska Native females and the third most common cancer among black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic females.36
The charts below show how lung cancer compares to other common causes of death among males and females of all ages.

Ten leading causes of death among males and females, 2002?​

Males

 

[JoJaBuckeye]

i'd rather there be good news regarding cancers that aren't due to the ignorance of the person getting them.

Provided that unprotected sex in the gay community is not addressed, right?

 

[Taosman]

Provided that unprotected sex in the gay community is not addressed, right?

It's comments like this that make people look homophobic.
Drop it.

 

[Thump]

sure it's good news. i'd rather there be good news regarding cancers that aren't due to the ignorance of the person getting them.

why should there be a distinction between those who quit and those still smoking? Both groups only have themselves to blame.

The article gives some false hope. Still appear to be too many false positives.

What about people like Dana Reeve who never smoked in her life?

 

[BrutuStrength]

It's comments like this that make people look homophobic.
Drop it.

No, they actually don't. It's an attempt to point out that different types of sexual behavior carry with them greater consequences, including pregnancy and increased risk of getting diseases.

 

[IronBuckI]

taos telling someone to drop a subject....interesting.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Re: So far, the most accurate detector of cancer has been dogs. In 2006, researchers found dogs could be trained to smell cancer on the breath of patients with 99 percent accuracy.

Just have the dog smell your breath.