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

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

Joel
Joel

February 10th, 2001, 8:29 pm #1

Joel's Reinforcement Library


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



This sentiment is often expressed to me by clinic participants when they are initially trying to quit. More surprisingly though, some ex-smokers off for substantially longer times maintain this feeling. Apparently, these people originally quit smoking out of fear of cancer. But once off smoking, so many other benefits are evident to most ex-smokers that fear of disease should not be the only motivation for not smoking.

Physical and psychological benefits from not smoking are both numerous and rewarding. Most ex-smokers breathe better, have more energy and greater endurance. Circulation improves and cardiovascular fitness is greatly increased. Because of the benefits to the respiratory and circulatory systems, ex-smokers can participate in activities which they had to avoid while smoking. Ex-smokers are more productive, both at home and work, leaving them more time to do enjoyable recreational activities. Food smells and tastes better, making the ex-smoker much more capable of enjoying finer culinary treats. They become calmer, better able to deal with life's demands and stresses. Aesthetic improvements are dramatic. They smell better, and even the skin appears healthier. In many, not smoking will prevent premature wrinkling which would have occurred if they continued to indulge in cigarettes. They are more socially acceptable as ex-smokers. No longer do they have to worry about offending non-smokers around them. They can go anywhere, any time without worrying about whether they will be able to get their 20 minute fixes of nicotine. Improved self-esteem is a major benefit noted by the majority of ex-smokers. No longer are they spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year on cigarettes. No longer do they worry about burning holes in their furniture, clothes and cars. No longer do they worry about starting fires which could destroy everything they own and possibly themselves. Last, but in no way least, they are eliminating from their lifestyle the greatest preventable cause of premature death and disability in our country.

Why would anyone want to sacrifice such gains to go back to smoking? Even if they reduced the risk from one disease, all the other diseases still pose a great threat to smokers. But worse yet, returning to smoking means once again becoming an addict. All of the associated behaviors will once again become necessary to maintain a serum nicotine level high enough to avoid withdrawal. They will have to smoke in places where smoking is unacceptable. When encountering stress, they will have to smoke continuously to feel better. "Better" means just as rotten as they would have felt originally if they were non-smokers encountering the same stress. No longer could they sit comfortably through a two hour movie or meeting where smoking is prohibited. Once again they will be viewed by others as weak unfortunates unable to break free from such a dirty habit. Some view them with pity, others with scorn. No one views them with envy. They will smell bad, they will look bad, and they will be slowly crippling and killing themselves.

Life is simpler, healthier and more enjoyable as a non-smoker. Whenever considering going back to smoking, or just trying one cigarette, take a long careful inventory of the gains you have made by quitting. Think of the inconveniences and dangers you will face of once again having to smoke 20, 40, 60 or even more cigarettes a day. Consider both of these sides and, if you choose to remain an ex-smoker, simply - NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!



Quote
Share

John (Gold)
John (Gold)

April 3rd, 2001, 10:36 pm #2


I used to use the junkie thinking that they would find a cure for lung cancer before mine arrived. How sick! At the time I didn't know that there are many different types of lung cancer nor did I realize that that each cigarette was destroying my good cholesterol (HDL), causing every artery in my body to slowly harden and clog, or that more smokers were killed each year by heart disease than by lung cancer. I guess I didn't want to know.
Last edited by John (Gold) on July 29th, 2009, 2:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Marius (Silver)
Marius (Silver)

June 20th, 2001, 10:54 pm #3

It makes me laugh now, to think that I believed that smoking is acting as a "dezinfectant" for me, and prevents me from getting cancer!!!!! I firmly believed that i would get cancer next day after quitting smoking.

Marius, Day 11 and feeling great.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

September 23rd, 2001, 7:53 pm #4

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
Quote
Share

John (Gold)
John (Gold)

February 26th, 2002, 8:47 am #5

Monday February 25, 2002 10:11 AM ET
Cancer May Never Be Eliminated,
Nobel Laureate Says
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists are winning the fight against cancer but it is a long, slow process and the disease that kills about six million people each year may never be eliminated, said Nobel medicine laureate Sir Paul Nurse.
Don't expect any magic bullets. Forget miracle cures.
Cancer is not one but more than 200 different types of disease and far too complicated for any quick fixes.
``Our generation will make significant progress. I really do believe that. I don't believe we will eliminate cancer,'' the co-director of Cancer Research UK, Europe's largest research organization, told Reuters in an interview.
Nurse should know.
The 53-year-old motorcycle enthusiast who has the look and boyish charm of American comedian Robin Williams has been delving into the secrets of cells for more than two decades. He shared the 2001 Nobel Prize for identifying essential components that control how cells replicate.
Faults in the controls of cell division are what causes cancer. Instead of dying the mutated cell keeps dividing and eventually forms a tumor.
``It is an immensely complex disease. Much more complex than most other (diseases) we have to deal with,'' said Nurse.
``Because of the complexity there aren't going to be easy quick hits. There may be some but essentially we have to understand fully one of the most complicated diseases known to mankind,'' he told Reuters.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Nurse, who celebrated his award with a new Kawasaki GPZ 500 motorcycle, is confident that new findings about the genetic and environmental components that cause cancer will lead to better treatments and improved prevention strategies.
But he said the one component that could have the biggest impact on cancer has nothing to do with a miracle drug.
``The single most major hit we can get for short-term cancer rates is to eliminate the use of tobacco. We have to try to do that.''
It is an old message but one which Nurse said people are failing to heed. If smokers quit and adolescents don't start fewer people would die from lung and other cancers linked to tobacco. Lung cancer kills about a million people each year.
Avoiding known causes of cancer such as tobacco and over-exposure to the sun, coupled with a better understanding of the genetic components that promote cancer, is the two-prong attack that Nurse said will make a difference.
``If you understand the genetic makeup better we will be able to sort out the environment more easily. That is a new type of approach that we will be able to increasingly use over the next 10-20 years and I think that could lead to significant improvements in prevention,'' according to Nurse.
Of the estimated 30,000-40,000 genes in humans, scientists suspect perhaps a few hundred are involved in cancer. Each particular cancer, be it breast, colon or skin, is probably defective in a subset of those genes.
``We now understand cancer much better. We have the conceptual tools and we have the scientific tools to dissect it and it is that understanding that will lead to better treatments,'' said Nurse.
Nurse likens some of the cruder cancer treatments to shaking a broken radio. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but it is better than doing nothing.
``If we really understand how the radio works we should tailor treatment to make it work better. That's the state we're in (with cancer) and that's why I'm optimistic,'' he explained.
``We will always have cancer with us because of natural mistakes in the natural body so it will never be eliminated but I think we can do much better than we are doing now.''
Quote
Share

DebD (GOLD)
DebD (GOLD)

March 29th, 2002, 4:25 am #6

I always thought I loved smoking but with this educated quit, I have found how wrong I was and I would never take another puff if they proved that smoking didn't cause any medical problems. I am enjoying this new freedom of fresh air to fowl it up with the dirty, nasty smoke again. My house and truck are just beginning not to reek from the stench. No a cure for cancer couldn't intice me back. "Thanks, but no thanks!" Here's to remaining smoke free and enjoying it!
DebD

8 DAYS 2 HRS 30 MIN, 162 NOT SMOKED, SAVING $ 28.36, lif saved: 13 HRS 30 MIN
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

June 14th, 2002, 1:21 am #7

For anyone waiting for a cure.
Quote
Share

Juanjuanjuanjuanjuan200
Juanjuanjuanjuanjuan200

July 29th, 2002, 9:02 am #8

thanks for the enlightning, (la claridad). Will keep track of every light: circulatory problems are bigger than cancer lung. No wonder I ve been feeling so well.

Juan
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 29th, 2002, 9:20 am #9

Last edited by Joel on July 29th, 2009, 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

ComicForces GOLD
ComicForces GOLD

March 13th, 2003, 12:52 am #10

I love this one -

It's funny because last night I heard on the news that "they" may have found something to help heal lungs in lung cancer patients (or something, not sure of the exact details). I of course, as a new quitter, got that "pang" of a thought of - "oh my friends that still smoke - **** them - they are going to be lucky and won't have to deal with lung cancer". Which is JUNKIE THINKING. I know this.

What I love the most about this link is the list of everything good that comes with not being a smoker.

My favorite is having more time and more energy to do more things. I LOVE this concept, and it's so true. I have always been a HUGE procrastinator, and VERY lazy…and smoking has magnified that bad quality of mine by about 250%. I never LIKED being that way--- coming home, sitting in the dark watching TV and taking frequent smoke breaks --breaks from doing nothing. I stayed away from exercise as I didn't want to feel my heart pound and be reminded that my breathing was getting worse and worse….

I CHERISH the fact that I am getting my energy back. I really got to a point a few months before my quit where I really didn't like my life. I didn't like not having energy.. I didn't like wanting to take a nap any second I could get. I didn't like the taste of cigs in my mouth… I didn't like that when I went for my nap, my hands would reek of smoke and thus my bed would reek. I didn't like sitting in the dark. This was one of my biggest reasons for quitting.

Now I've been exercising…and doing things at night - cleaning, doing laundry, painting my nails, cleaning my car… I'm living in a comfortable, neat, clean environment (now I suddenly have time to take 30 minutes a night to "straighten up" around the house - go figure!!)… I am relaxed at night from exercising… A state of calm.

I might print out this article as a reminder of the GREAT benefits of NOT being a smoker. How much better that life is than getting cancer treatments if they ever really exist.

THANKS

CF

2 weeks, 5 days without a single puff
Quote
Share

Kit Cat (Gold)
Kit Cat (Gold)

March 13th, 2003, 3:09 am #11


Well, it's been awhile since I've posted to this site, but this article hit home with me.


When I QUIT smoking May 5, 2002 I used to think exactly like this article depicted. If they came up with a cure I would go back to smoking. That's how I thought 10 months ago!


Now that 10 months have gone by and I have taken CONTROL I do not have thoughts of going back to something that controlled me. I won't say I miss what I THOUGHT smoking did for me, but the advantages of being of the MAJORITY now outweigh any thought of wanting to go back.


I never let my guard down, but there are now many days in a row that I do not think of cigarettes anymore. I initially QUIT when my father died of cancer, but now I know I QUIT for myself. I like the clean, uncontrolled, healthier life that I have now chosen to live.


In Canada, we now have various adverstisements and one in particular shows the smoker standing outside in the winter freezing his butt off, but still justifying why he's out there smoking. To me, this looks really sad and I also relate to them since I used to smoke. What we didn't see is how it really looked. Now that's an ADDICT.
For all of you out there, as most of the achievers never get tired of telling you, keep up the struggle, because eventually it will become what will be normal. Nothing is easy is ever worth keeping, so you all keep up the hard work. It does have it's rewards!


Catherine

SMOKE FREE for 10 months, 1 week. NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!
Last edited by Kit Cat (Gold) on July 29th, 2009, 2:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joanne Gold
Joanne Gold

April 15th, 2003, 10:26 pm #12

Last edited by Joanne Gold on July 29th, 2009, 2:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

August 6th, 2003, 8:59 pm #13

Hopes dim for cancer cure in near future By Daniel Q. Haney
The Associated Press

July 28, 2003

Not long ago, the defeat of cancer seemed inevitable. Decades of research would soon pay off with a completely fresh approach, an arsenal of clever new drugs to attack the very forces that make tumors grow and spread and kill.

No more chemotherapy, the thinking went. No more horrid side effects. Just brilliantly designed drugs that stop cancer while leaving everything else untouched.

Those elegant drugs are now here. But so is cancer.

The approach, which appeared so straightforward, has proved disappointingly difficult to turn into broadly useful treatments. Some now wonder if malignancy will ever be reliably and predictably cured.

The dearth of substantial impact so far suggests the fight against cancer will continue to be a tedious slog, and victories will be scored in weeks or months of extra life, not years. The full potential of the new approach may take decades to be realized.

The drugs, called targeted therapies, are intended to arrest cancer by disrupting the internal signals that fuel its unruly growth. Unlike chemo, which attacks all dividing cells, these medicines are crafted with pinpoint accuracy to go after the genetically controlled irregularities that make cancer unique.

Several have made it through testing, but despite their apparent bull's-eye hits, lasting results are rare. Instead, these new drugs turn out to be about as effective - or as powerless - as old-line chemotherapy. Aimed at the major forms of cancer, they work spectacularly for a lucky few and modestly for some.

But for most? Not at all.

Doctors have many theories about what's gone wrong. But it is clear that cancer is a surprisingly robust foe, packed with convoluted backup systems that kick in when threatened by the new drugs.

At best, experts now expect knocking down cancer will require an elaborate mixture of targeted drugs, assembled to match the distinct biology of each person's cancer.

"It's a much more complicated problem than anyone ever appreciated," says Dr. Leonard Saltz, a colon cancer expert at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. "It will, unfortunately, be with us for a long time."

The job is so daunting, especially for advanced cancers propelled by potentially dozens of nefarious genetic mutations, that scientists are even rethinking the goal of cancer research.

"Society as a whole, and most of the medical profession, have it wrong understanding we'll wake up one morning and find out cancer is cured. It won't happen. The public should give it up," says Dr. Craig Henderson, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and president of Access Oncology, a drug developer.

"What we have learned by these billions of dollars invested in cancer biology is that cancer are us," he goes on. True, cancer is different. But not different enough. "Identify what makes cancer unique and wipe it out? That won't happen. We cannot wipe out the cancer without wiping out a lot of the rest of us."

Henderson and many others have shifted their sights to something less - converting cancer into a chronic disease, like diabetes or AIDS. Treatments might slow or even stop its worst effects so people survive for years reasonably free of symptoms.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, head of the National Cancer Institute, argues that a cure is not even necessary if this can be done, something he optimistically hopes to see by 2015. But eliminate cancer? "Not in the foreseeable future," he says.

Experts concede there is no firm evidence that targeted treatments will tame cancer to a chronic condition, either. Certainly, the ones tested so far do not often come close to this for the common varieties, such as lung, breast, colon and prostate cancer.

Although targeted therapies have their origins in basic cancer discoveries of the 1980s, the story for many began at a meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 1998. Researchers were thrilled to hear of the first convincing demonstration that a targeted drug could slow the course of cancer even a little. It was proof that the principle is sound.

Usually wary oncologists rhapsodized about a new era of treatment. "A tidal wave," one of them called it. Even then, no one predicted quick cures. But they clearly felt they at least had the key to getting inside cancer and fixing it.

The drug that caused the euphoria, Herceptin, became a standard treatment for spreading breast cancer, typically delaying progression by a few months in the quarter of victims with a particular genetic profile.

Since Herceptin, targeted drugs have become the prevailing approach in cancer research. Whenever any of these make slight progress, the news is widely and sometimes breathlessly reported.

An estimated two-thirds of the nearly 400 cancer medicines in human study take this tack. Yet researchers do not envision successes any more spectacular from this pipeline than the modest effects of the handful already on the market.

"Right now, in the short run, we can bring an occasional miracle and have an overall small benefit," says Dr. John Glaspy, medical director of UCLA's surgical oncology center. "But there has not been a major improvement on what happens to them ultimately."

Furthermore, the dream of abandoning chemotherapy has largely evaporated. Even the targeted drugs' small benefits are typically seen only when combined with standard chemo.

Cancer doctors facing waiting rooms full of dying cancer patients, with little to offer but easing misery and perhaps a few extra months of survival, clearly had wished for more.

"The hope was that these targeted therapies would be the new magic bullet and would cure cancer," says Dr. David Decker, an oncologist at William Beaumont Hospital outside Detroit. "It's fair to say they haven't panned out the way we thought they would."

The targeted drugs have been most impressive against cancers of the blood and immune system, which are easier to control than the more common organ tumors. For instance, about half of patients getting Rituxan for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma have at least a 50 percent reduction in their cancer.

Side note:|

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
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

December 1st, 2003, 8:18 am #14

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
Quote
Share

John (Gold)
John (Gold)

January 15th, 2004, 10:06 pm #15

Cancer May Never Be Eliminated,
Nobel Laureate Says
Monday February 25, 2002 10:11 AM ET
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists are winning the fight against cancer but it is a long, slow process and the disease that kills about six million people each year may never be eliminated, said Nobel medicine laureate Sir Paul Nurse.
Don't expect any magic bullets. Forget miracle cures.
Cancer is not one but more than 200 different types of disease and far too complicated for any quick fixes.
``Our generation will make significant progress. I really do believe that. I don't believe we will eliminate cancer,'' the co-director of Cancer Research UK, Europe's largest research organization, told Reuters in an interview.
Nurse should know.
The 53-year-old motorcycle enthusiast who has the look and boyish charm of American comedian Robin Williams has been delving into the secrets of cells for more than two decades. He shared the 2001 Nobel Prize for identifying essential components that control how cells replicate.
Faults in the controls of cell division are what causes cancer. Instead of dying the mutated cell keeps dividing and eventually forms a tumor.
``It is an immensely complex disease. Much more complex than most other (diseases) we have to deal with,'' said Nurse.
``Because of the complexity there aren't going to be easy quick hits. There may be some but essentially we have to understand fully one of the most complicated diseases known to mankind,'' he told Reuters.
LONG-TERM STRATEGY
Nurse, who celebrated his award with a new Kawasaki GPZ 500 motorcycle, is confident that new findings about the genetic and environmental components that cause cancer will lead to better treatments and improved prevention strategies.
But he said the one component that could have the biggest impact on cancer has nothing to do with a miracle drug.
``The single most major hit we can get for short-term cancer rates is to eliminate the use of tobacco. We have to try to do that.''
It is an old message but one which Nurse said people are failing to heed. If smokers quit and adolescents don't start fewer people would die from lung and other cancers linked to tobacco. Lung cancer kills about a million people each year.
Avoiding known causes of cancer such as tobacco and over-exposure to the sun, coupled with a better understanding of the genetic components that promote cancer, is the two-prong attack that Nurse said will make a difference.
``If you understand the genetic makeup better we will be able to sort out the environment more easily. That is a new type of approach that we will be able to increasingly use over the next 10-20 years and I think that could lead to significant improvements in prevention,'' according to Nurse.
Of the estimated 30,000-40,000 genes in humans, scientists suspect perhaps a few hundred are involved in cancer. Each particular cancer, be it breast, colon or skin, is probably defective in a subset of those genes.
``We now understand cancer much better. We have the conceptual tools and we have the scientific tools to dissect it and it is that understanding that will lead to better treatments,'' said Nurse.
Nurse likens some of the cruder cancer treatments to shaking a broken radio. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't but it is better than doing nothing.
``If we really understand how the radio works we should tailor treatment to make it work better. That's the state we're in (with cancer) and that's why I'm optimistic,'' he explained.
``We will always have cancer with us because of natural mistakes in the natural body so it will never be eliminated but I think we can do much better than we are doing now.''
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

March 11th, 2004, 9:50 pm #16

From: Joel. Sent: 9/23/2001 6:53 AM


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
Last edited by Joel on June 15th, 2010, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Coolmare2green
Coolmare2green

April 4th, 2004, 12:24 am #17

Hi Everybody--- even if there were no rewards to our physical health by quitting the use of nicotine, the TREMENDOUS benefit to our psyches when we free ourselves from " mandatory feedings " makes all this SO worth it. so, for me, even if they came up with a cure for every ailment caused by nicotine use, i'd never go back to using. there will never be a cure for the spiritual sense of despair caused by drug dependency.
Love and life to all of you---
Mary
I have chosen not to smoke for 6 Months 3 Days 12 Hours 4 Minutes 10 Seconds. Cigarettes not smoked: 1855. Money saved: $426.66.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

March 13th, 2005, 7:16 pm #18

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
Quote
Share

John (Gold)
John (Gold)

April 8th, 2005, 2:55 am #19

Last edited by John (Gold) on July 29th, 2009, 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

May 12th, 2005, 7:31 pm #20

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
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

February 19th, 2006, 12:20 am #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
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

June 7th, 2006, 6:31 pm #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
Quote
Share

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 7:22 pm

January 22nd, 2010, 1:31 am #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
Quote
Like
Share

FreedomNicotine
FreedomNicotine

June 5th, 2010, 4:14 pm #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


Quote
Share

Joined: November 11th, 2008, 7:22 pm

February 15th, 2011, 4:42 pm #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/
Quote
Like
Share