Breath test to detect lung cancer

UK Press via Google News ^ | August 30, 2009

[TigersEye]

Well, rat's arse! ;^)

I spent a couple of hours searching the net about four years ago for statistics on smoking and cancer and came up with zip. Not the AMA, the AH&LA, the NHI or any government site. It was like deaths from legal abortions, no data.

[T Minus Four]

check out lungcancer.org and the lung cancer alliance.

[TigersEye]

You want me to do a blind search of those sites for information to support your statistics? I don’t think so.

[T Minus Four]

Oh good grief, I just thought you wanted more info. I didn’t know we were competing; I thought we were sharing info.

Shesh, they are probably all “damn statistics” anyway.

[TigersEye]

I’m sorry. I thought you were rebutting the statistics I posted and wanted me to do the research to support your argument. I’ll look over those sites and see if they have anything that I can use.

[TigersEye]

I see that lungcancer.org says that “Nearly 87% of all lung cancers in the United States are smoking-related.” They then go on to cite secondhand smoke as one of those related causes. As debunked as the ‘secondhand smoke causes cancer’ meme is that number isn’t of any use.

[TigersEye]

Alright, I have looked over both of those sites. Neither one has any statistics at all on what percentage of smokers contract lung cancer or what percentage of non-smokers do.

[T Minus Four]

I scanned a few sites and noticed that second-hand smoke was a recurring theme. I don’t know what to believe about that, and we don’t seem to hear much about that any more.

[TigersEye]

What I find interesting is the most basic statistics of all, which you know the government compiles data on, is not available.

[T Minus Four]

check out this site

[TigersEye]

Thank you. You found a lot there. I know I searched NCI and NCHS in the past and didn't find nearly that much. They break it down in a number of different ways but only one stat comes close to what I was trying to give which would be 'lifetime risk' for smokers and non-smokers. They give a lifetime risk for everybody without separating smokers from non-smokers. Looks like it is almost 7% which is what I was giving for smokers.

"Based on rates from 2004-2006, 6.96% of men and women born today will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus at some time during their lifetime. This number can also be expressed as 1 in 14 men and women will be diagnosed with cancer of the lung and bronchus during their lifetime."

I'm sure someone who knows how to read stats could get more out of their numbers. There is a pdf page of lifetime risk that is age-adjusted. That confuses me. Why (or how) would you 'age-adjust' a lifetime risk? That sounds counter-intuitive but I'm sure it makes sense to a statistician.

Thanks again. It is a lot more than I had found before. Bookmarked.

[T Minus Four]

You’re very welcome. This HAS made me a little uneasy though, having smoked for many years :-( I quit over 12 years ago but I guess you’re never completely safe.

[Jean S]

The lung cancer biomarkers were found by comparing breath samples from 40 diagnosed patients and 56 healthy individuals.

96 people tested. Since when is a report like this considered as legitimate medical research?

[TigersEye]

No, I don't suppose anyone is safe. Or at least no one knows who is and who isn't. It sounds like you have been a non-smoker long enough that the additional possible hazard has been repaired.

Don't worry ... stress isn't good for your health. ;-)

[T Minus Four]

It sure does feel good to be able to breathe and run and climb stairs and laugh hard and sleep well :-) Cheers my friend!