"If they ever cure lung cancer, I would go back to smoking."

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

19 Feb 2006, 00:20 #21

From above:

There is one other side note I could have attached to this article when I wrote it. If they really ever did find a cure for lung cancer that was 100% effective--most people who die from smoking would still die. More people die from heart and other circulatory conditions from smoking than who die from lung cancer from smoking. The biggest risk posed by smoking numerically is actually the assault on the circulatory system and it often causes premature death at a much younger age than lung cancer normally does.

Although at many of my recent programs participants have been telling me of anecdotal instances of younger people they know personally or know of, many being in their very early 40's, dying of lung cancer. The tragedy of these cases is how often they are saying they have left young children and families behind--all in order for the "enjoyment" of smoking. The only way to reduce all the risks posed by smoking is to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply

Joel
Joined: 18 Dec 2008, 23:57

07 Jun 2006, 18:31 #22

While there is no magic cure for smoking induced cancers right around the corner, there is a non-magic solution to minimizing your risks of over developing a smoking induced cancer and a host of other diseases caused by cigarettes. It is simply sticking to your commitment to never take another puff!

Joel
Reply

JohnPolito
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 19:22

22 Jan 2010, 01:31 #23

Lung cancer patients who quit smoking double their survival chances

Research: Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis

Editorial: Smoking cessation

People diagnosed with early stage lung cancer can double their chances of survival over five years if they stop smoking compared with those who continue to smoke, finds a study published on bmj.com today.

This is the first review of studies to measure the effects of continued smoking after diagnosis of lung cancer and suggests that it may be worthwhile to offer smoking cessation treatment to patients with early stage lung cancer.

Worldwide, lung cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer. In the UK, it is second only to breast cancer, accounting for around 39,000 new cancer diagnoses annually.

Smoking increases the risk of developing a primary lung cancer; lifelong smokers have a 20-fold increased risk compared with non-smokers. But it is not known whether quitting after a diagnosis of lung cancer has any benefit.

So researchers at the University of Birmingham analysed the results of 10 studies that measured the effect of quitting smoking after diagnosis of lung cancer on prognosis.

Differences in study design and quality were taken into account to minimise bias.

They found that people who continued to smoke after a diagnosis of early stage lung cancer had a substantially higher risk of death and a greater risk of the tumour returning compared with those who stopped smoking at that time. Data suggested that most of the increased risk of death was due to cancer progression.

Further analysis found a five year survival rate of 63-70% among quitters compared with 29-33% among those who continued to smoke. In other words, about twice as many quitters would survive for five years compared with continuing smokers.

These findings support the theory that continued smoking affects the behaviour of a lung tumour, say the authors. They also provide a strong case for offering smoking cessation treatment to patients with early stage lung cancer.

Further trials are needed to examine these questions, they conclude.

An accompanying editorial says this study adds more to the evidence that it is never too late for people to stop, even when they have lung cancer.

Contact:
Amanda Parsons, Research Fellow, UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies, Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
Tel: +44 (0)121 414 8611; Mobile: +44 (0)7889 975 859
Email:
a.c.parsons@bham.ac.uk

http://www.bmj.com/content/vol339/issue ... elease.dtl


Influence of smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer on prognosis: systematic review of observational studies with meta-analysis BMJ 2010;340:b5569
Published 21 January 2010
A Parsons, research fellow, A Daley, senior lecturer, NIHR career scientist, R Begh, research associate, P Aveyard, clinical reader, NIHR career scientist

Abstract


Objective To systematically review the evidence that smoking cessation after diagnosis of a primary lung tumour affects prognosis.


Design Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Data sources CINAHL (from 1981), Embase (from 1980), Medline (from 1966), Web of Science (from 1966), CENTRAL (from 1977) to December 2008, and reference lists of included studies.

Study selection Randomised controlled trials or observational longitudinal studies that measured the effect of quitting smoking after diagnosis of lung cancer on prognostic outcomes, regardless of stage at presentation or tumour histology, were included.

Data extraction Two researchers independently identified studies for inclusion and extracted data. Estimates were combined by using a random effects model, and the I2 statistic was used to examine heterogeneity. Life tables were used to model five year survival for early stage non-small cell lung cancer and limited stage small cell lung cancer, using death rates for continuing smokers and quitters obtained from this review.

Results In 9/10 included studies, most patients studied were diagnosed as having an early stage lung tumour. Continued smoking was associated with a significantly increased risk of all cause mortality (hazard ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 7.54) and recurrence (1.86, 1.01 to 3.41) in early stage non-small cell lung cancer and of all cause mortality (1.86, 1.33 to 2.59), development of a second primary tumour (4.31, 1.09 to 16.98), and recurrence (1.26, 1.06 to 1.50) in limited stage small cell lung cancer. No study contained data on the effect of quitting smoking on cancer specific mortality or on development of a second primary tumour in non-small cell lung cancer. Life table modelling on the basis of these data estimated 33% five year survival in 65 year old patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer who continued to smoke compared with 70% in those who quit smoking. In limited stage small cell lung cancer, an estimated 29% of continuing smokers would survive for five years compared with 63% of quitters on the basis of the data from this review.

Conclusions This review provides preliminary evidence that smoking cessation after diagnosis of early stage lung cancer improves prognostic outcomes. From life table modelling, the estimated number of deaths prevented is larger than would be expected from reduction of cardiorespiratory deaths after smoking cessation, so most of the mortality gain is likely to be due to reduced cancer progression. These findings indicate that offering smoking cessation treatment to patients presenting with early stage lung cancer may be beneficial.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.b5569
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/340/jan21_1/b5569

Related BMJ Editorial:

Smoking cessation
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.b5630
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/ ... 21_1/b5630
Reply

FreedomNicotine
Joined: 06 Dec 2008, 16:58

05 Jun 2010, 16:14 #24

Study: Selenium not effective against lung cancerFrom Saundra Young, CNN


STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Study finds selenium did not reduce lung cancer patients' risk of recurrence
  • Researchers looked at selenium as way to reduce lung cancer after 1996 skin cancer study
  • Trials show patients fared better with placebo than with selenium


(CNN) -- Contrary to previous research, the supplement selenium does not reduce the risk of developing lung cancer, a new study shows.

From protecting against heart disease to combating cancer, selenium has been touted over the years. But a study by the MD Anderson Cancer Center found lung cancer patients taking the supplement did not reduce their risk of developing recurring lung cancer or a new cancer.

Over the last 10 years, researchers followed more than 1,500 Stage I non-small cell lung cancer patients that had had their tumors surgically removed and were cancer free for at least 6 months. Patients got 200 micrograms of selenium a day or a placebo.

The results were not encouraging.

"This process is very insidious and takes years," said Dr. Daniel Karp, the study's principal investigator and professor in the Department of Thoracic/Head and Neck Medical Oncology at MD Anderson. "And unfortunately we were not able to show that selenium produced any clear benefit."

Researchers started looking at selenium as a possible way to reduce lung cancer after a study in 1996 that examined the supplement and skin cancer development.

They found selenium didn't protect against skin cancer but did see about a 30 percent reduction in prostate and lung cancers. Large clinical trials began, but results have been largely negative. In fact, MD Anderson's lung cancer study was stopped early because an interim check found those taking the placebo were faring a bit better.

"What I can say with confidence is if you take someone with a resected stage I lung cancer and give them 200 milligrams of selenium a day for up to four years, there's no evidence that that's beneficial," Karp said. "In fact, it looks like people who took the placebo had fewer cancers."

In the study, 78 percent of patients taking the placebo had no recurrence of cancer after five years compared to 72 percent of those on selenium.

Dr. Mark Kris, chief of thoracic oncology service at Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, said his advice to consumers is to stop using selenium to prevent new or recurring cancers.

"One thing that has been shown to prevent second cancers is to stop smoking," he said. "In other trials like this, that is the common thread."

Karp agreed, saying that every patient in the study had a small lung cancer, and 80 to 90 percent of them were past or current smokers. The evidence, he said, supports the notion that tobacco carcinogenesis overwhelms mild supplements -- and that it might even be harmful.

"The message is for goodness sakes, stop smoking and if you can, make sure that young people don't start," Karp said.

Early detection is also key.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States for both men and women, according to the American Cancer Society. There were nearly 220,000 new cases last year and 160,000 deaths.

When caught early, like Stage I, more than 80 percent of cases can be cured.




http://www.cnn.com/2010/H...ex.html?eref=igoogle_cnn


Reply

JohnPolito
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 19:22

15 Feb 2011, 16:42 #25

Smoking reduces survival in young females with
lung adenocarcinoma after curative resection

Medical Oncology. 2011 Jan 30. [Epub ahead of print]

Liu M, Jiang G, Ding J, Fan J, He W, Zhang P, Song N.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate effects of smoking on the overall survival of young female lung adenocarcinoma patients after curative resection. A total of 282 surgically treated young females (younger than 40) with histologically confirmed primary lung adenocarcinoma were studied retrospectively.

Overall survivals (OS) and related prognostic factors were analyzed. The 5-year OS of current-smokers and non-smokers were 20 and 36.6%, respectively (P = 0.03). As for patients with stage I disease, the 5-year OS of current-smokers and non-smokers were 50 and 68.8%, respectively, (P = 0.02). Smoking (RR = 3.15, CI 1.726-8.786) was identified as an independent prognostic factor. Current-smokers (21.4 vs. 14.5%, P = 0.03) and non-smokers (37.9 vs. 28.8%, P = 0.02) all benefited from adjuvant chemotherapy.

Among young female patients with adenocarcinoma, current-smokers have a lower survival rate than non-smokers, especially patients with stage I disease.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q0507j4223l243w7/
Reply

JohnPolito
Joined: 11 Nov 2008, 19:22

16 May 2012, 11:06 #26

ImageImagine getting hooked as a teen in the 1970s fully aware that smoking causes lung cancer.  Imagine rationalizing to yourself that even if you kept smoking that they'd surely find a cure before your risks grew too great.  Sadly, such wishful thinking has been deadly.  Image
"If all [United States] smokers had quit in response to the Surgeon General's first report in 1964, over 1.6 million lung cancer deaths might have been averted among men, and over 880,000 among women."
 Source:   Impact of reduced tobacco smoking on lung cancer mortality in the United States during 1975-2000. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2012 April 4; Volume 104(7): Pages 541-548. http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/104/7/541.full
Reply