What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$45 & up: Huge Hotel Sale view!
travelzoo.com - Great discounts on rooms for the holidays and beyond!
56 Comments
- mostie, on 05/31/2009, -0/+12This is awesome!
- painting, on 05/31/2009, -4/+14you can get lung cancer without smoking one cigarette idiot. Smoking just increases your chances of getting it.
- seventhc, on 05/31/2009, -0/+7I accept death 100% but seeing your loved ones suffer through radiation or whatever treatment they give you even though it wont save you really sucks, not to sure why you dugg me down though.
If I died today I would do so with no regrets but that doesn't mean I enjoyed watching my mother suffer the way she did before she finally passed. - soulonfire928, on 05/31/2009, -0/+6This is nothing about curing the disease, just finding out early if you have it.
- seventhc, on 05/31/2009, -1/+6This is great news, unfortunately to late for me as I have already lost my mother to it and now my father has it...stage 3 before he even knew...really sucks. Hopefully this can help people find out before it's to late when it can still be treated.
- guyincognitoo, on 05/31/2009, -1/+6While you can get lung cancer without ever smoking, the odds are pretty low.
"Approximately 10% of patients with lung cancer in the United States are lifelong never smokers"
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/5/ ... - missinglink, on 05/31/2009, -0/+5This is great news. Now that smokers pay for Children's Health Care, we need as much incentive to keep smoking as we can get. For the kids!
- yourbackpacker, on 05/31/2009, -1/+5This is a great news! We have to know there is a new development on cancer. We all think only smokers get lung cancer, it is not true any more. My sister is a non-smoker, she had lung cancer. Lucky for her, she has a great family doctor, detected her condition early and treated her lung cancer and she is cancer free now. If there is a way to detect lung cancer by blood test. I am all for it.
- iticu, on 05/31/2009, -0/+4Save time for what, exactly?
- cliffzdude, on 05/31/2009, -0/+3fatal616 - no class, bad form.
seventhc, I'm with you. Lost my dad a few years ago to cancer, and my Mom last year to lung cancer. Watching the end isn't easy in any case, but damn cancer causes people to wilt away in such a painful manner. - tnarugby, on 05/31/2009, -2/+5It could also make zombies
I'd advise anyone in NYC to move - Cerzi, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2how contrived
- jsynnott, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2It must be sad that I first understood the title as meaning it would save thousands of pounds/dollars, rather than lives =/.
- blipblopblip, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2Lung cancer can also occur for purely genetic reasons.
- inactive, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2hey idiot, 20% of lung cancer patients have NEVER smoked.
- fatal616, on 05/31/2009, -1/+3wow, thats definitely wrong - unless lifelong means from birth to death because then yeah in that case most smokers are not life long ones.
"Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths and is responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder"
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/tobac ... - cliffzdude, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2Or lived in a city, as does most of the world's population. (air pollution)
- Serphyas, on 05/31/2009, -0/+2A TEST for lung cancer. TEST.
- vzerbee, on 06/17/2009, -0/+1Early detection is such a great benefit for people. Cancer is devastating and to be have a way to pre-screen like this can make a world of difference. Science continues to bring us new discoveries like detecting these proteins before cancer will begin to grow.
- nodebtnow, on 08/28/2009, -0/+1this article is good
- h0ser, on 05/31/2009, -1/+2great news. Everyone should get a blood test just for the peace of mind. I know it's not available yet, but it will be.
- jonclayton, on 06/08/2009, -0/+1buzz.content
- ianharper11, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1GREAT NEWS
- chriseldridge, on 07/27/2009, -0/+1It will be interesting the impact on an early detection mechanism for lung cancer has on the smoking fraternity!!
- slk3, on 08/26/2009, -0/+1Very interesting reading, I liked it. Thanks
- lyric123, on 06/01/2009, -0/+1The early detection of possible cancer cells is one of the most useful information to have greater chances of survival from this fatal disease. This development in the study of cancer will surely benefit a lot of people. Doctors always say that for a person to survive cancer, early detection is still the key. Although the study suggests that they have to have further studies to establish this process, it's still a sign of progress for the fight against the Big C.
- yevkasem, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1don't be retarded. this received priority because someone saw the dollar signs associated with all the smokers. lung cancer is so common for a reason.
smoke -> get cancer -> treat it -> smoke more -> get cancer -> more treatment -> ... - rheaume, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1Try millions
- KRa104, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1I agree that this is a step in the right direction, but early detection doesn't always mean longer survival. If the treatment is no more effective at treating early stage cancer vs later stage cancer, then all this means is that people find out they have cancer sooner.
- inactive, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1Well someone must be paying off all the hundreds of thousands of graduate students because the universities haven't found a magical cure either.
- hypnodeb, on 07/07/2009, -0/+1Great news about this test. I just hope this helps more people want to quit smoking sooner before the danger of lung cancer takes over their bodies.
- boffy, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1http://thorax.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/thx.200 ...
The above appears to be the initial article where the idea was floated.
I can't find any publications that mention how reliable this test is. I'd appreciate it if anyone else can! - hypnodeb, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1Nice to see this new test. Glad I don't have to worry about that but will help those who have smoked and are worried.
- SummerofGeorge, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1have you considered second hand smoke causing lung cancer, smartass?
gee, i wonder what would happen if we eliminated the source of that - wastelander, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1I'm not sure how much faith I would put into this article. The source seems to be a press relief from company that makes a version of the tests seeking investors. These sorts of testing for various "patterns" of tumor makers have been going on for a number of years, but to my knowledge, none has yet gone on to actual clinical trials to determine whether they are genuinely helpful in diagnosing and treating patients in a clinical setting. That said, with all the people working on it, I am hopeful that something like this will become a useful diagnostic/screening tool in the near future.
- spriggig, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1Wired has a good article on how we don't focus enough on finding cancer early:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/17-01 ... - Pinkertinkle, on 05/31/2009, -0/+1I guess you don't know about pretest probability and sensitivity/specificity and the millions of false positives your suggestion there would cause.
- ARTLUKM, on 05/31/2009, -1/+1Douche. Digg has never reported on a commercially available "cure." There have been lots of stories on proposed cures or stuff being in testing. Ever heard of John Kanzius? There are very strong indications his cure will *work*. Go back to your miserable pessimistic life of skepticism and cynicism and leave us alone.
And as for this story, it's excellent news. - inactive, on 05/31/2009, -2/+2Can't go a day without marijuana being the wonder drug either.
- Pinkertinkle, on 05/31/2009, -2/+2It's not legitimate until they prove it extends lives in a randomized control trial. Tests can find the cancer sooner but often results in no proven long term benefit, like PSA and prostate cancer,
- greenlight2001, on 05/31/2009, -2/+2What a great idea. Then they all should get a PSA looking for prostate cancer, MRI/MRA of the brain looking tumors and AVMs, a CT of the abdomen looking for aneurysms and kidney stones, and blood tests looking for HIV and lyme disease, and ....
Oh wait, you mean you should use these test responsibly and only for people at risk? - str1fe, on 05/31/2009, -1/+1As fantastic as this is, it saddens me about the state of my country that you never hear about American scientists or research groups coming up with stuff like this.
- aadautech, on 11/05/2009, -0/+0In last 30 years, the most commonly diagnosed cancers are lung (1.35 million), breast (1.15 million), and colorectal (1 million); the most common causes of cancer death are lung cancer (1.18 million deaths), stomach cancer (700,000 deaths), and liver cancer (598,000 deaths). The most prevalent cancer in the world is breast cancer (4.4 million survivors up to 5 years following diagnosis).
http://blog.aadautech.com/ - violetness, on 09/02/2009, -0/+0I've got one for ya. QUIT SMOKING. Save billions!! I don't get it - really. I mean, the law makes murder illegal, drunk driving, drugs, all these other harmful and nefarious activities, yet smoking, and MAKING cigarettes is still legal even though it kills thousands of people a day. Sure, people woiuld be PISSED off in the beginning, but they were also pissed when cocaine was made illegal and when Wyatt Earp took the guns out of the town.
- pshanfileti, on 07/11/2009, -0/+0As a physician, I have had the unfortunate opportunity to have patients with lung cancer. I sincerely hope this test and many others become available to people quickly. There is no doubt that early detection and prevention are deserving of our utmost attention.
- h0ser, on 05/31/2009, -1/+1did you read the article man, it doesn't sound like you did.
- fatal616, on 05/31/2009, -3/+2Exactly! and most smokers i know who were told they needed to stop smoking ASAP due to cancer - didn't stop! What a ***** waste. They need to make those cancer sticks more potent so we can save time.
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is