New CT scanners can catch lung cancer while it's still curable

Chicago Tribune via Waterbury Republican-American ^ | October 26, 2006 | A.P.

[Graybeard58]

CHICAGO -- A new generation of CT scanners that can

The 10-year survival rate for people diagnosed with early lung cancer is usually abouv 70 percent. But 85 percent of tumors are not detected until they are more advanced and difficult to treat.

Many experts lauded the findings and said doctors would now look more closely at using CT scans on patients at risk for the nation's top cancer killer. The scans are currently used to diagnose cancer once symptoms appear, not for routine screening.

But they also cautioned that the results of even larger studies now under way are needed before CT scanning is broadly recommended for people at risk.

~snip~

CT screening also picks up small lesions, such as tiny scars, that may be confused with cancer, putting a person through additional testing and anxiety.

~snip~

primarily because earlier studies using chest X-rays showed no benefit and because of the perception that cigarette smoking, the major cause of lung cancer, was a matter of choice.

~snip~

"Unfortunately, we have not left behind the idea that lung cancer is a punishment, not a disease," Unger wrote in an editorial in the New England Journal. "The legacy of the stigma that has been associated with lung cancer may have delayed the launching of vigorous research on early detection of the disease."

~snip~

"This paper could be the dawn of a transition from a very frustrating, expensive and unsatisfying management of late-stage lung cancer to a much more systematic focus on early-stage lung cancer management," said medical oncologist Dr. James Mulshine, vice president for research at Rush University Medical Center.

[green iguana]

Smoke all you want - just get your annual CT scan...

[Graybeard58]

I just saw a snip on local news about this and they stated that most insurers won't pay for it. The cost is about $250.

Small price to pay to detect a killer in its early stages.

Blame smokers if you will but when you lose someone you love to this killer you really don't think a lot about the reason they have it, or at least, I haven't.

[Straight Vermonter]

Awesome video of what the next generation of CT scanners will be capable of doing.

[megatherium]

Too late to help my father. He died at 74 last year, of stage 4 large cell carcinoma of the lungs. Diagnosed in August, dead Christmas week, a typical time frame for this disease. The warning signs of the cancer were vague. He had some shortness of breath a year earlier, which his physician thought did not merit concern; not until he had ataxia (lack of balance and dizziness) from a secondary tumor in the cerebellum was the primary tumor found.

He was a two-pack-a-day smoker for 27 years, but he'd quit 27 years before. (If memory serves, one-third of all lung cancers are diagnosed in former smokers.) Now I worry about my mother, who has a similar history of smoking. She suffers from COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is emphysema combined with chronic bronchitis), another smoking-related illness.

There's a big study on CT scans that's supposed to be finished in 2009. We should know for sure if these are worthwhile for lung cancer screening (whether they really reduce mortality).

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

CT screening also picks up small lesions, such as tiny scars, that may be confused with cancer, putting a person through additional testing and anxiety.

---

Let's be clear on what this is saying. If everyone gets an annual CT scan there will be buttloads of folks with a little scar or a little granuloma that get -- guess what --- part of their lung removed -- only to be told --- NEVER MIND.

Keep in mind we went through this many moons ago with the notion of "Screening chest X-rays". We'll just do a CXR on you once year and as soon as we see a spot - Bingo - instant cancer cure.

The problem was you pick up way more nothings than you pick up somethings.

Put another way the trick is to make these screening tests more specific - not so much to make them more sensitive.

Unless I'm missing something here.

[green iguana]

It was on our local news last night also. They mentioned the no insurance coverage part, but also said that the new study and gov't recommendation would likely start to change that.

WRT my earlier comment - I wasn't being flip. I smoke.

[fatnotlazy]

When I read of new and promising developments in medicine, I think we're lucky we don't have socialized medicine...well, yet anyway. If the U.S. does go into socialized medicine, all the research will go by the wayside.

[Ouderkirk]

Haveing been a service engineer that worked on CT's, one has to question if the huge dose of X-Rays from a CT scan are worth the risk.

In some cases it is, but on an annual basis? I don't think so. PET/CT scanners have produced good results but again the dose and energy levels of thses types of images can be equally damaging.

It's a tough choice and I would consider this for persons who have a high risk of cancer (i.e family history) but would be reticent in advising this for those with low risk.

[green iguana]

one has to question if the huge dose of X-Rays from a CT scan are worth the risk

My impression, from the news report that I was last night, was that this was a low-dose, quick CT scan. I know nothing about CT scans, but they made it sound like it didn't have nearly the amount of radiation as a usual one. My impression could very well be wrong...

[kidd]

I read that each CT scan approximately doubles the rate of breast cancer for women who have the scan before age 35.

http://www.ijri.org/articles/archives/20001001/physics_ct.htm

[Ouderkirk]

the average dose of a chest X-ray is in the neighborhood of 200 micro-grey. 80kVp, 100mA, 100mSec.

A Chest CT with a slice size of 1/2 mm is going to take 100X of that even with a 64 slice scanner.

Average chest length is 18 inches and 64 slice scanner. So you're looking at about 32 mm per rotation at 0.4 sec per rotation.

450 mm scan length /32 mm per rotation = 14 rotations * 0.4 sec per rotation = 5.6 secs of expusure. At 200 micro-gray per 100 milliseconds the dose really adds up

[Froggie]

There is no CT scan anywhere in America for $250.00 more like 1250 and higher.

[Graybeard58]

There is no CT scan anywhere in America for $250.00 more like 1250 and higher.

Just quoting the local news.

[Graybeard58]

CT Scan $270

http://www.wecaremedicalmall.org/

[therut]

Well all that will do is increase insurance costs for everyone. Just a thought. The more things the .gov mandates an insurance company cover the higher the cost. I have no problem with that as long as people realize this is ONE main reason insurance costs what it does. Must cover BC pill, pregancy, mammograms, pap smears etc. Even if you are a man, menopausal etc. People could pay for these small ticket items if they wanted to. I know alot of people would not so they would die or cost more money. That is the reason we get .gov in our lives is we are as a people STUPID. You can not have your cake and eat it too without paying for the cake.

[neverdem]

Survival of Patients with Stage I Lung Cancer Detected on CT Screening

Landmark Study Reveals That Lung Cancer 10-Year Survival Dramatically Improves With Annual CT Screening and Prompt Treatment

[green iguana]

Well all that will do is increase insurance costs for everyone.

Maybe not. If you can catch the tumor early and get rid of it with a few treatments, the insurance cost for that is much lower than catching it late and having the person die after two years of continuous, intensive treatment.

[therut]

Yes and this is something the Medical Profession is just now thinking about. The number of CT scans done as defensive medicine is HUGH. I would not be surprised if it is at least a half of all done. Go to a ER and say you got hit in the head and have a HA. I bet you get a CT scan. Parents, patients and lawyers demand it.