Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Simple Test May Spot Early Lung Cancer
HealthDay News ^ | April 7, 2010 | Amanda Gardner

Posted on 04/09/2010 3:08:19 PM PDT by neverdem

Researchers may have found an easy way to detect lung cancer in its early or even pre-cancerous stages, as well as a way to reverse the start of the deadly disease with a readily available, over-the-counter drug.

"It's incredibly, incredibly exciting," said Dr. Patrick Nana-Sinkam, a lung cancer expert with the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, who was not involved with the new study. "This definitely has potential."

The minimally invasive procedure involves using a small brush to collect a smattering of cells from the windpipe (a bronchoscopy), explained study co-author Andrea Bild, an assistant professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

Maybe one day, screening could be done using an even simpler nasal or sputum test, the researchers said.

Currently, there is no good way to detect lung cancer -- the number one cancer killer -- in its early stages when it's most treatable. By the time most lung cancers are diagnosed -- which usually involves an invasive examination of the lungs -- patients already have advanced malignancies. Only 15% of patients are still alive at five years, said Nana-Sinkam.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for 90% of all lung cancer cases in the United States.

Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, begging the question: Why do some smokers succumb to the disease and others don't.

Now genomics may have provided an answer.

Working on the theory that cigarettes harm not only the lungs but a "field of injury" extending to other areas of the respiratory tract, the study authors surmised that evidence of existing or soon-to-develop lung cancer might be available further up in the airway.

The researchers used so-called microarray genetic analysis to measure gene expression levels in the epithelial cells -- those cells lining the respiratory tract -- that they had captured with the bronchoscopy.

"We were looking at the activity of genes in the cells that we obtained from the windpipe or airways of smokers at risk for lung cancer," said study senior author Dr. Avrum Spira, a critical care physician at Boston Medical Center and associate professor of medicine, pathology and bioinformatics at Boston University School of Medicine.

It turned out that gene activity in the PI3K pathway was "off the chart" in smokers with lung cancer versus those without the disease.

"Obviously that's very exciting," Spira said. "We have identified a marker for an early risk of developing lung cancer."

And when treated with the compound myo-inositol, the gene pathway activity declined along with improvement in the troublesome lesions, the researcher noted.

"This drug inhibits the pathway that's activated in smokers. The drug is a natural compound. You can get it in health-food stores," Spira said.

"We're now in the midst of a large study to look at whether or not activity of this pathway can be used to pick those who could benefit from this as a treatment as opposed to just prevention," said Spira, who is a co-founder of Allegro Diagnostics Inc., a company that plans to market this biomarker.

The researchers also need to explore whether or not the PI3K pathway is active in non-smokers, as well as what other pathways might also trigger lung cancer.

The study findings were published in the April 7 issue of the journal Science Translational Medicine.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Testing
KEYWORDS: cancer; health; inositol; lungcancer; medicine; pi3k; technology
Inositol May Prevent Lung Cancer in Cigarette Smokers

Airway PI3K Pathway Activation Is an Early and Reversible Event in Lung Cancer Development

1 posted on 04/09/2010 3:08:19 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

awesome

Lung Cancer usually is not discovered until it is way too late. And If it spreads to other organs, turn out the lights.. its over.


2 posted on 04/09/2010 3:10:49 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God save America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

In my 47 year old cousin it spread to the brain. Her first symptoms were from the brain tumor and the lung cancer was diagnosed later.

It took 6 awful months.


3 posted on 04/09/2010 3:14:53 PM PDT by Mears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

yes. I lost a dear friend who had quit smoking many, many years ago, but still died at 51. Very sad. I am excited about this new development.


4 posted on 04/09/2010 3:14:59 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

yes. I lost a dear friend who had quit smoking many, many years ago, but still died at 51. Very sad. I am excited about this new development.


5 posted on 04/09/2010 3:14:59 PM PDT by GOP Poet (Obama is an OLYMPIC failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Cigarette smoking is responsible for 90% of all lung cancer cases in the United States.

Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, begging the question: Why do some smokers succumb to the disease and others don’t.”

This doesn’t make sense to me. 10-20% of smokers develop lung cancer, and apparently smoking isn’t related to 10% (100 minus 90), so how are they certain that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer. Not saying that they are wrong, it just seems... off.


6 posted on 04/09/2010 3:16:06 PM PDT by autumnraine (America how long will you be so deaf and dumb to the chariot wheels carrying you to the guillotine?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative
something very wrong with those numbers...90% of all lung cancer from cigarette smoking....but only 10 -20% of smokers get lung cancer????

So 80 to 90% of people who get lung cancer do NOT smoke.

Those stats say time to look for a different cause.

7 posted on 04/09/2010 3:19:22 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
I pretty much wrote the same thing....

The scientific profession has made themselves "cigarette dependent" for their work...It's the first question the doctor asks...and it infuriates me...It creates a STRONG bias in examination.

8 posted on 04/09/2010 3:23:54 PM PDT by Sacajaweau (What)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

I’ve known people who died from lung cancer who never smoked. They were probably in that 10% that this article references. The question remains: were they exposed to 2nd hand smoke? Poor air quality in their communities? What?

Before rules were enforced to curtail workplace smoking, I worked in some places that were just awful with smoke — a Boy Scout office was one. It was located in the basement of a church with poor ventilation. When you came inside it looked like you were stepping into a fog, the smoke was so thick from my 2 co-workers.

Another really bad environment was at a newspaper. The publisher was the worst — smoked like a chimney all the time. We’d all be working together to get the paper “to bed” and the smoke was dreadful.

My aunt succumbed to emphysema attributed to her husband’s continuous smoking.


9 posted on 04/09/2010 3:25:10 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Illogical. 10-20% of smokers getting lung cancer does not equate to 80-90% of the non-smoking population getting it.


10 posted on 04/09/2010 3:25:14 PM PDT by granite (A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
So 80 to 90% of people who get lung cancer do NOT smoke.

Math is not your strong point, is it?

11 posted on 04/09/2010 3:25:16 PM PDT by Glenn (iamtheresistance.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Four year lung cancer survivor here!

I have Asthma, emphysema and then got lung cancer on top of that. But Dr. Ross of Ohio State University Cancer Hospital used a new microscopic way of operating and took 14Th of my left lung where the cancer was.

The normal way was to cut you all the way from the back to the front. But Dr. Ross’s new procedure only left me a 3 inch scar on my side and a scar about the size of a quarter where the drainage tube was.

If not for God’s blessing me, the Ohio State University Cancer Hospital and Dr. Ross, I would have died back in 2006.

So far so good. Dr. Ross did tell me that the biopsy of the part of my lung that he removed showed 3 cancer cells right next to where he cut and that even one cancer cell on the other side, the side in me, could spread the cancer again. But after four years I think I’m safe.

It will be the Asthma or Emphysema that get’s my butt.


12 posted on 04/09/2010 3:31:49 PM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro-Choice = Pro-Death........ Pro-Life = Pro-LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Not quite. What he’s saying is that 10% - 20% of SMOKERS develop lung cancer and this equates to 90% of all lung cancers.

It also implies that many different cancers, in the mouth, throat and windpipe, can also develop in association with smoking.


13 posted on 04/09/2010 3:32:29 PM PDT by Nipfan (The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it - H L Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Will this test be allowed under Obamacare for the average older citizen?


14 posted on 04/09/2010 3:33:19 PM PDT by ladyvet (WOLVERINES!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

So, we fix smoking problems, everyone smokes again and the government gets more tax revenue.


15 posted on 04/09/2010 3:33:19 PM PDT by edcoil (If I had 1 cent for every dollar the government saved, Bill Gates and I would be friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
How about these stats. "1 out of 6 men will get prostate cancer."

"Most men over 80 have had or currently have some form of prostate cancer."

I guess your chances of living over 80 are better if you have prostate cancer. The other group, 5 out of 6 men who don't get it don't fare as well. - Tom

16 posted on 04/09/2010 3:34:14 PM PDT by Capt. Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GloriaJane

Silly me, that’s supposed to read 1/4th of my left lung.


17 posted on 04/09/2010 3:34:20 PM PDT by GloriaJane (Pro-Choice = Pro-Death........ Pro-Life = Pro-LIFE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good news.

Not sure I care for the idea of them calling inositol a “drug”, though.

What’s next? Will we need a prescription for that dangerous dextrose stuff?


18 posted on 04/09/2010 3:34:57 PM PDT by djf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP Poet

Do you remember LadyInRed ? A FReeper that passed away a few years ago ?

I never got to know her that well. But it was so sad when we lost her. it is sad when we lose any FReeper


19 posted on 04/09/2010 3:38:22 PM PDT by se_ohio_young_conservative (God save America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Ten to twenty percent of smokers get lung cancer. Let’s just make it simple and say ten percent.

So, 1/10 of smokers develop lung cancer, meaning that 9/10 do not. This strictly deals with the subset of smokers.

Now, on to the subset of lung cancer cases. Ten percent of lung cancer cases are in nonsmokers. Ninety percent of lung cancer cases are in smokers.

This tells us that smokers who develop lung cancer, with a frequency of one in ten, represent 90% of lung cancer cases. That tenth of the smaller subset of smokers who develop the disease represent nine tenths of the larger subset, of people who develop the disease.


20 posted on 04/09/2010 3:38:26 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GloriaJane

Praise G-d! He still has a mission for you.


21 posted on 04/09/2010 3:47:16 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“This project will be led by a team of principal investigators, including David Schwartz, MD, at National Jewish Health, Mark Geraci, MD, at the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Medicine; Naftali Kaminski, MD, and Frank Sciurba, MD, at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; John Quackenbush, PhD, at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; and Avrum Spira, MD, at Boston University School of Medicine.”

Source: National Jewish Health

Another gift from the Jewish People to the People of the world—how much did we lose when hitler murdered 6 MM Jews? They are truly the Light of the World.


22 posted on 04/09/2010 3:49:42 PM PDT by richardtavor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
"This doesn’t make sense to me. 10-20% of smokers develop lung cancer, and apparently smoking isn’t related to 10% (100 minus 90), so how are they certain that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer. Not saying that they are wrong, it just seems... off."

Many types of cancers from other organs can migrate to the lungs.

23 posted on 04/09/2010 3:50:20 PM PDT by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mears

Sorry. Evil stuff.


24 posted on 04/09/2010 3:51:00 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Apples and oranges. Of the total population of lung cancer victims...90% are smokers. Ten percent of lung cancer victims are not smokers. Total population of lung cancer victims 100%. Now, only 10-20% of the total population of smokers fall victim to lung cancer. These are not the same percentages. See? :D)
25 posted on 04/09/2010 3:57:44 PM PDT by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Copied from somewhere...more sources would be good to find out about:
Major sources of inositol include beans, citrus fruit, nuts, rice, veal, pork, and wheat germ.


26 posted on 04/09/2010 4:14:53 PM PDT by spankalib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Good observation.

The article is interesting to me because my mother is undergoing chemo for a lymphoma cancer in here lungs. She has never smoked. She appears to be responding well to the chemo, but we had a very difficult time identifying the cancer cell. The needle biopsies revealed nothing.

We finally got desperate and took her to Scott & White in Temple TX. Made 4 trips there. One the 3rd trip they went a step past a needle biopsy and found the lymphoma.

If this can be detected early with a test and treated with an over the counter med, this will be a major step forward.

TF


27 posted on 04/09/2010 4:20:35 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: se_ohio_young_conservative

I gotta simple test for lung cancer. Check the patient’s pockets for cigarettes!


28 posted on 04/09/2010 4:33:40 PM PDT by Haiku Guy (Gov. Chris Christie (R) won the NJ-6 held by Rep. Frank Pallone (D) by a 15.5% margin!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pebcak

Interesting, thought you might think so too.


29 posted on 04/09/2010 4:37:07 PM PDT by MizSterious ("Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, ...

According to WHO/CDC studies it is 8%.

Smoking Does Not Cause Lung Cancer (According to WHO/CDC Data)*

Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less.


30 posted on 04/09/2010 4:43:06 PM PDT by TigersEye (Duncan Hunter, Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachman, ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine
Still, only 10 to 20% of smokers actually develop lung cancer, begging the question: Why do some smokers succumb to the disease and others don’t.”

I have an aunt who is approx. 80 years old who once smoked many years ago, developed lung cancer in her later years and has had a full recovery following treatment.........She is one amazing woman......

But to answer your question, why do people who have never smoked develope lung cancer or emphysema anyway?

Some people get fat, some people don't, some people are allergic to latex, most people aren't.

I'm thinking that the medical and scientific community are now getting too big for their britches..........

31 posted on 04/09/2010 4:50:24 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Hot Tabasco

The largest cohort of cancer victims in the world are chinese women who cook oily foods over stoves in their homes. Inadequate ventilation.


32 posted on 04/09/2010 5:28:01 PM PDT by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: autumnraine

It sounds to me like 10-20% of smokers will develop lung cancer. They represent 90% of the lung cancer cases. 10% of lung cancer cases are non-smokers. Better? It was a really weird way of saying it.


33 posted on 04/09/2010 9:38:55 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StormEye

Yup. Ovarian cancer is one of them. :(


34 posted on 04/09/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by TNdandelion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Inhaling an irritant of some kind, over a lengthy period of years, increases the chance of precancerous cell mutation, which increases the chance of cancer. Some precancerous lesions form in the absence of any carcinogen. This would be either random chance, or an unknown or less obvious carcinogen. An older population as a whole increases the apparent frequency of cancers. Live long enough and individual odds of having some form of cancer are more than even.

I hate to sound even remotely like some of these leftist environmentalists, but something has changed. Cancers in pet dogs have gone through the roof in the past decade or so. Excessive vaccinations and/or chemical exposure (lawn chemicals and internal or external flea and tick treatments, primarily) are being blamed there.

Many cancer treatments in humans originate with canine veterinary medicine. The two, human and canine, respond similarly to treatment and are prone to many of the same cancers. So, it’s reasonable to theorize that the cause(s) might be similar as well.


35 posted on 04/10/2010 5:55:05 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

i have known many good young dogs who have died in the past year. I am rethinking heartowrm and flea treatments


36 posted on 04/10/2010 7:31:45 PM PDT by Chickensoup (We have the government we deserve. Is our government our traitor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

Think long and hard about dropping the heartworm treatment. That’ll kill a dog, too. If you’re in a heartworm endemic area and your dog spends any large amount of time outdoors, a mosquito carrying the parasite will eventually bite your dog, and then heartworm will develop. The treatment for a dog with heartworm isn’t pretty, and many do not survive it. If you’re not in an endemic area, it’s something to consider, but only if you’re not.

Fleas and ticks can be controlled in other ways. Diatomaceous earth (not the swimming pool kind but the kind that is safe for human and animal contact) kills fleas indoors and out. Nematodes deliberately introduced into the exterior yard areas that the dog frequents will eat the flea larvae in the ground, breaking the reproduction cycle. Any number of herbal preparations can be used to repel fleas and ticks from the dog as well. It’s more work and it’s more expensive, but if you’ve had a beloved dog go through cancer, and I have, it’s something you’re willing to do, to remove a potential source of the disease.

All the vaccinations are problematic, according to a number of credible sources. I only vaccinate mine as required by law, and once they’re older, I’ve been known to get a titer test to see if a particular vaccination can be bypassed for another year. It really throws their immune system for a loop, and an older dog doesn’t take it nearly as well.


37 posted on 04/10/2010 9:16:55 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson