Comments on: Study: CT Scans Could Catch Smokers’ Lung Cancer Early

By: Antonette Wamsley

Antonette Wamsley — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:43:29 +0000

Information about solar panel installation.

By: Darrick Meraz

Darrick Meraz — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:36:31 +0000

Information about solar panel installs NJ.

By: Munden

Munden — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:26:54 +0000

The comments are interesting. To respond. Dean mortality takes into consideration the time intervals. That is why mortality is used and not survival, which would tend to even out over 10 yrs. The trial also showed a decrease in overall mortality – in otherwords death from causes other than lung cancer. Clearly there is more to learn from this trial than known at this time.

Al – I am a little surprised at your comments and presummed ability to stop habitual behavoir in loved ones. My parents were heavy cigarette smokers and stopped when they decided not when I told them to. I presume you have no loved ones who are overweight, drink alcohol a little more than moderation, drive cars too fast, engage in risky behavoir, live in a large city? Much like Deana states, there are numerous behavoirs that put a person at risk for potential health care expenses. The fast food industry is certainly coming under major scrutiny now, but the everyday diet of Americans could be considered a problem. And what about second hand smoke or polution from large cities? Without a doubt, the most effective thing we can do is NOT smoke, but that can’t be reversed for those that have already reached a critical point. Screening will decreasd deaths in this group from this awful disease. When the cost effectiveness studies of the NLST are completed, I suspect it will also show that screening for lung cancer also saves a lot of money in treating this disease.

By: Deana Ashby

Deana Ashby — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 19:19:42 +0000

Al, so let’s NOT give obese people the best care possible because they voluntarily ate to much or how about those who chose to work with risky chemicals, ya know, those known to cause cancer or…hey, doc? How about the football player or boxer…the list of risky behaviors can go on. If you’re a doctor you are in the wrong profession! Most people that come to see you took some sort of risk that lead to them coming to see you…maybe they didn’t wash their hands often enough…get real.

By: Al

Al — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 16:56:36 +0000

Kyle – I am a physician. If it were my family, I would’ve told them to stop smoking. If you are going to smoke and develop lung cancer, why should the American public subsidize your risky behavior? Why should we even subsidize early screening?

Frankly the only reason I can think of that smoking has not been outlawed is that the governmental revenue from taxing the tobacco giants outweighs the U.S. government’s health care costs related to COPD, lung CA, and the other assortment of smoking-related diagnoses.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 16:06:57 +0000

If it was your family, wife ,mother, child, would you be thinking that it is a financial and moral problem? Or would you have a change in opinion?

By: Dean

Dean — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 03:03:56 +0000

Costs.

8 years times 3 examinations times 400 dollars equal 9,600 dollars. Times 25,000 (half of the study group) equal 250,000,000 dollars. To save 90 lives,,,,, ??? Of voluntary smokers.

What is the long term mortality? Were those 90 lives saved temporarily? By the very nature of the improvement (CT scan) were the X-ray only cases diagnosed later, the CT earlier? Might the two groups equal out given a five year time line, a ten year time line?

Are the false positives more or less prevalent in X-rays or CTs? False positives can be hugely expensive to no result. Did the CTs reduce or exacerbate?

I think the study has raised more problems that it solved, moral, and financial.

Yes, if medical care were instant and of no cost to anyone, rate payers, taxpayers, bill payers, do it. It is not.