Trial of 53,000 smokers is first to show screening can save lives
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.com'Spiral' CT scans can cut lung cancer deaths
Seeded on Thu Nov 4, 2010 12:04 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
Stop smoking would have been results and be cheaper.
Not a surprise that the CT scans show more than standard x-rays. Is it worth the money? If the individual smoker is paying for it, then yes it is to them. If they want others to pay for the CT because they will not quit smoking, then it is not worth it.
And for all those who might say, but if it was your parent you would have a different view, that is not correct. Smoking play a significant role in the deaths of both my parents. They were smokers and would not quit. They never wanted the kids to smoke, but it was OK for them.
how uncompasionite can you be. shame on you
I think it's important to realize that many non-smokers are diagnosed with with lung cancer also. Lung cancer is not just a smokers disease.
Too many people are blindsided by Lung Cancer. We need to raise awareness and money for the disease that is taking so many lives. Most people don't know that getting a spiral ct scan can detect lung cancer when it is curable. It was too late for my sister. I hope others reading this will investigate early detection.
Lung cancer is curable in its early stages. Get a ct spiral scan for early detection. Many hospitals have programs with reduced rates for the scan. The scan could have saved my sister. When my sister died of lung cancer I started a memorial garden. The garden has helped me deal with the loss in ways I couldn't imagine. I've taken over 5000 pictures of the beautiful blooms inspired by my sister. Many people after viewing the garden are leaving comments and making dedications to loved ones. Please visit and share the garden magic. http://www.mysisterdalesgarden.
What a beautiful tribute to your sister. My Mom passed away due to lung cancer 2 years ago. It's a horrific disease and the treatment is just as bad.
I love that you chose Jim Brickman's music for your video. I chose it also for my Mom's memorial service and just hearing a couple of notes can send me running for tissues.
Thanks so much for sharing this -
"The low-dose scans"? Low dose? I'm assuming that the author here botched the article rather than the study refering to sprial CT scans as "low dose". A radiologist can correct me if I'm wrong, but a single abdominal CT scan delivers hundreds of times the radiation dose that a regular chest X-ray does. Perhaps they meant to say that the "lowest dose CT scan possible" (still very high dose), given to older, high risk people (for whom you can better justify the radiation risk of the scan), is a good idea.
At least you can die with the dignity of not having your cancer caused by cigarettes.
TJ, They like to create quite a scare about how much radiation the body can handle with minimal risk. I had Whipple surgery to remove pancreatic cancer(adenocarcinoma) in late March followed by 28 radiation therapies every weekday in a row while doing chemo at the same time Which killed what cancer they couldn't scrape off the vein and artery that used to pass through my pancreas. I am now following up with other chemos which get a c/t scan every 6 weeks. I asked my radiation oncologist last Tuesday if further radiation was still possible if needed for 2 tiny spots in my liver are proven to also be cancerous. He ran the figures on all my radiation which seems to be a lot and said that I am nowhere near my lifetime limit and can run radiation aimed at my liver if necessary even though I still will continue needing frequent c/t's until this is over. Apparently the body can take quite a bit.
P.S. I am expected to be one of the rare survivors of this cancer. It will be nice to get my life back. Never give up as I have found others who have beat it.
P.S. Each of my scans are a triple as they scan 3 seperate regions. Thorax, abdomen, and Pelvis.
I'm curious about "low does" CT as well. A typical abdominal CT scan delivers radiation equivalent to 500 (!) chest x-rays. I have had five CT scans in my life - one a double with and without contrast. The fact is that's the same as 2,500 chest x-rays. Safe? NO WAY. Put another way, I have stood 1/2 mile from the Hiroshima atomic bomb blast 2 times. The overuse of the CT was a topic in the JAMA 10-06-10 issue. There are alternatives that are completely safe and less expensive.
Next time Johnny gets a bump on the head and you take him to the ER, they might want to jump to do a CT scan. Ask yourself if it would be okay for them to run 500 normal x-rays on Johnny. You would, "Just say no." But, in reality (and what they don't want you to know), is that it's the SAME THING. The overuse of the CT scan in the USA is scandalous.
"Low Dose" needs to be defined - I'm truly interested to know.
Radiation exposure from the low-dose helical CT scans used in this study is comparable to the radiation exposure from a mammogram.
some scanners have special software (ASIR) to reduce the dose to patients...yes it is more than a xray but the radiation is minimal. Its not the DR. -
ARRT (R)(CT) Tech
I'd be willing to bet that if you thought you had lung cancer and it was treatable with early diagnosis, you'd be more than happy to have the ct scan - low dose or not.
Why do people assume that only SMOKING causes lung cancer. LISTEN I am here to tell you I am 38 years old NEVER SMOKED and guess what...in July I found out I had stage III lung cancer. I had my left lung removed four weeks ago and I am fighting everyday to recover. AGAIN smokers are not the only ones to get lung cancer.
Wish you a speedy recovery.
One note: The subject of the research were all smokers. I assume that most people realize that smoking is not the only cause.
Josie, five years ago last week I had my upper right lobe removed due to stage II lung cancer. I had smoked and had stopped nine years before that. I was one of the lucky ones. I had an xray for unrelated back pain and my doc called me an hour later to tell me there was a mass in my lung. I went through surgery and chemo and last month I was pronounced clear and discharged. You have an uphill climb but be strong, you will make it.
Wishing you a successful recovery. Rest when you're tired and realize that it is not necessarily a doom and gloom. I too am one of the lucky ones - 12 years from first surgery and 9 years from second. Prayers are for you to be as blessed as I am.
In this particular study the participants were heavy smokers - current or former. They all had to have a history of smoking equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 30 years. They were all between the ages of 55 and 74 at the time of enrollment also. The results from this study really only pertain to people who fall into this high risk group; that is why they are talking about smoking and smoking cessation in the article. Certainly health care providers and researchers know that smoking is not the only cause of lung cancer.
You are so right Josie. My mom died of lung CA and she also never smoked. I'm glad you are with us and all my best for a speedy recovery and long healthy life.
Josie--wish you a full and speedy recovery. The only reason i even read this article is because today, 11/4/10, my birthday, this machine was used to picture my cancer
(Prostrate) I was diagnosed in October, so the machine was used to see if it spread.
Good luck with yours.
My Mother was just diagnosed yesterday with stage 2 lung cancer. They saw something on her liver and lymph nodes but she will be having her biopsy done next week. She is not a candidate for surgery because her pulminary is only 39. I have been reading all kinds of articles online and it seems that her survival rate is extremely low. I lost my Father to acute leukemia 3 years ago and my Mother was just starting to get settled into her new life. Cancer sucks.
I never smoked but was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2006, my right lung was removed and a month after my surgery I underwent a 16 week regimen of chemotherapy. Last february they found a tumor supposedly in my spine which makes my cancer stage 4. They got rid of it supposedly by one dose of radiation in July but my back still feels it's on fire. My radiation oncologists says it takes months to heal. They said that my prognosis is good , that I have many more years to look forward to. You will recover from your surgery and be functional again especially you're still very young. I am 67 years old and except for some shortness of breath or difficulty breathing you'd be OK. Good luck to you.
I wish all of you a speedy recovery. Lung cancer is one of the worst cancers to have. And we really need to get over this stigma about only smokers get lung cancer. I know of a 14 year old girl that is currently undergoing treatment for lung cancer. She doesn't smoke and neither do her parents.
Josie is correct. Smoking "only" causes about 85% of lung cancers. The issue is that if you do CT screen on the entire adult population (say those over 40 like Mamography recomendations) at $1000 a pop, you'll find maybe 500 early lung cancers a year at a cost of a few hundred billion dollars. The screening recomendations "if" it makes the US Preventive Health Guidlines, most likely will include smokers with a 30 pack year history of smoking (one pack a day for 30 years, or two packs a day for 15 years). That "might" make it an "insurable" preventive test. Otherwise, people are free to pay the cost themselves. Smokers right now know that they have a lifetime lung cancer risk of more than 10%, yet still take the risk. Maybe add another $buck tax to the cost and put it in a CT campaign for long time smokers...but guess what, want to know the cessation rate of smokers with lung cancer? 14%
More backend healthcare tragedies, costs and "treatment". Here's a suggestion, stop sticking cancer sticks in your mouth. People don't walk into burning buildings, they don't stick their heads in fire pits and they don't suck tailpipes. So what's the problem here?
Yes, and while were at it, all you heroin, crack, and meth addicts and alcoholics ... the answer is sooo easy ... just quit! What's the problem here?
Wingnut83-you need to do some research. Smoking is just but one cause. My father had lung cancer casued from being exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam. Lung Cancer is a horrible diease. Dying slowly from sufficiation is horrible and it doesnt matter if you are a smoker or not. No one should have to suffer like that. Image being buried alive and running out of oxygen, only then do you get a small sense of what it is like to die from lung cancer.
Have you ever smoked? DON'T JUDGE.....if it were that easy to quit, don't you think more people would! Does someone deserve cancer because they smoked? Do you deserve any health problems or cancer because of anything you have not done perfectly with your body? Judgmental people like you are heartless. May GOD touch your soul!
The problem is you are dealing with an addictive drug, nicotine in cigarettes, heroin, crack, meth are also highly addictive. Getting through withdrawal is far from easy for most, and easy for a few. I tried to quit smoking several times, but succeeded only with the help of Chantix. According to some research, as many people die from second hand smoke as from actually smoking.
It's very hard to quit..my neighbor is a smoker and a former crack addict. She was able to get off crack by herself, without intervention or rehab..but she couldn't get off nicotine. Cancer period sucks.. it doesn't matter what kind you have. I do know from visiting a cancer survivors board (mother passed away from uterine cancer last year) that the cat scans and pet scans are not foolproof.. they can only pick up cancer that is 1CM I believe..so you could be riddled with cancer and it wouldn't show up on the scans unless it's a certain size..
ledgeroo, they are picking up 2 spots on my right lobe of my liver with a c/t scan and both are under 1cm. The smaller one is 3mm. These spots are deep in the middle of the right lobe, not on the surface. They have shown up on 5 scans in a row that small.
Hey Brenda i feel your pain. my dad was also dx with lung cancer. his was from agent orange too. and guess what, he was a smoker BUT the VA said his type of lung cancer had NOTHING to do with smoking. So WINGNUT get your f#ckin facts straight as you know nothing about lung cancer and the pain it not only causes the dx person, but their loved ones as well. F#CK CANCER! in memory of Edward Weiss JR.
So should we turn our backs on the obese like you are suggesting we do the smokers and crack heads or is that some how excusable.
It's not just smokers. Something like 15% of all people who die of lung cancer never smoked. I find the whole breast cancer month thing ironic. Because more women non smokers die of lung cancer every year then die of breast, cervical and a couple more types combined. Yet we got the NFL and everyone else promoting breast cancer awareness. It's about time we had lung cancer attention because that's the biggest killer by a large margin. The polluted air everyone breaths especially in cities isn't doing anyone any good and it's getting worse.
I agree with Jangocat about the overfunding of breast cancer research, but it's the media darling, even though it doesn't cause as many death's as other diseases, and all the corporation's including the NFL have caved to the breast cancer lobby.
On the other hand, I don't believe the air in cities is getting worse. The air is much cleaner than it was before the Clean Air Act was passed 40 (or so) years ago.
But we are on the verge of a cure for most breasts cancers. They obviously have a better marketing machine, more power to them.
Did you know that men get breast cancer too?
I feel the same way about uterine and ovarian cancer.. you hear very little about them as opposed to breast cancer. Why? Not that I don't want funding for BC.. it seems to be epidemic right now... a good friend just finished treatment and I have personally known several women , coworkers, a former teacher, a neighbor who have battled this beast with mixed results. And women with BC might be go on to live long lives, with no recurrence but they can also recur 5, 10, 15 , 20 yrs after the fact. If you think women aren't dying from BC, go to one of the cancer discussion boards and read how it has spread to the bones, the liver, and brain. All cancers can be deadly once they have metastatis.
We definitely need to promote lung cancer, as well as others, as heavily as breast cancer if promoted. Huge strides have been made in early detection, as well as treatment of breast cancer solely because of all the attention it has generated.
I believe that the research that is being done to prevent Breast CA will benefit other CA's, so it's not important to me which CA gets the attention/promotion.
My Mom died of complications from chemo for her lung CA. She quit smoking 14 years before diagnosis. A Spiral CT could have been useful to early diagnosis and treatment. I miss her terribly!
I also want to question the portion of this report that states: 3 CT scans per YEAR; is this a typo? I'm a radiologist and I've not seen a protocol that was that aggressive on the CT side. The peson who edited report should look into that.
Also, these scans are "relatively" low dose; but still higher than a plain film chest x-ray. Because it is the lungs which are imaged...and a large component of "the lungs" is extremey low density air...the radiation dose is considerably lower than for the abdomen/pelvis..which is mostly soft tissue and also involves a considerable bone component in the pelvis which must be adequately penetrated.
The real interesting aspects of these studies, not all of which were addressed in this "throw-away" article involve the questions in every screening tool: cost effectiveness, lead time bias, morbidity as a result of screening, and improved survival to name a few. These important questions are trying to be answered in this kind of "modern era" protocol.. to hopefully minimize the kind of confusion that is cropping up with screening mammography guidelines.
First 3 cts for each chest xray. What kind of comparison is that? Obviously you cannot put a price on a life, but also resources are not limitless. For sake of argument what was the price per life saved? 26000 patients got 5 chest xrays (1/yr for 5 years). 26000 got 15 CTs (3 per year for five years). Cost difference $1000 for CT and $100 for xray so $900*15*26000 = 351 million to save 112 lives or 3.1 million per life saved. Not to mention increased radiation exposure causing its own cancers which I cannot find exact numbers on but something like 1/10000 will get cancer from their chest CT depending on age and other variables. IN this group 375000 cts were done so theoreticall 37 cancers were caused by the cts themselves. Extrapolate this to the entire high risk population and it is not very reasonable.
We do not save lives, we prevent an earlier death. Every time we eliminate the #1 cause of death, we have another one.
Please see my comments - 1.3, 5.4 - for clarification on the groups involved in this study
I don't think the article implies that only smoking causes lung cancer, just that smoking is a known risk for and cause of lung cancer. If you smoke, you'll probably get lung cancer. If you have lung cancer, it doesn't necessarily mean that you smoke.
On another note, I'm more concerned with the fact that they seem to have ignored the effects of such a high dose scan. TJ is right, maybe a very low dose compared to other scans but not a low dose by any means.
Molly, Please read my reply to TJ on 4.2
Please see my comment - 4.5 - on radiation exposure.
If only 1 out of 10 smokers get lung cancer how can "If you smoke, you will probably get lung cancer"? Just asking
There's several reports out on how radiation of any kind could trigger cancer. We all carry non-cancerous cells in our bodies and doctors are starting to realize that many of them are becoming cancerous due to x-rays and CT scans, both of which are radiation. As far as lung cancer: Is it really smoking or is it the fact that most of us grew up in a very polluted atmosphere, 50's and 60's?
I just read an article that said 10 full body CT scans give a person the equivalent radiation as if they had been standing 1 mile from the blast site of Hiroshima. The article said that there will 15,000 cases of cancer each year CAUSED by CT scans.
It is completely true that it is not necessary to smoke to get Lung Cancer. That being said, smokers are MUCH more likely to contract this disease.
You develop cancer, not contract it. Any chronic irritation to the tissue can lead to dysfunctional cell division, thus cancer. Our environment is full of chemicals that are irritants which can lead to organ dysfunction, benign tumors as well as malignant ones. Smoking only adds insult to injury as we are all subjected to environmental toxins every day. Unfortunately, some areas of the world are more toxic than others. Do your research before buying a home or moving to a new area.
Who gives a rats azz,the ridicoulas prices for all these tests will bankrupt you anyway destroy your credit rating at this rate your better off dying anyway.I know I just went through it,my insurance paid $43,000.00 I have paid out of pocket $4,000.00.I'm still recieving bills for $1500.00,$500.00 ect. they just keep coming collection agencies are after me and I don't even have a clue where it all is coming from.Trust me folks our health care problems isn't the insurance companies its the rip off hospitals and doctors,am I the only one that knows this?? You never hear anyone say anything about it.Just blame the insurance companies,the easy way out I guess.
I would suggest that your hospital bill was probably in excess of $200,000. Hospitals have to sign agreements with insurance to take write offs of more than 75%. I say if you have only paid $4000 than you are doing well. Do you realize that the average profit margin of US hospital is 2%. I don't many corporations that would stay in business with only a 2% profit margin. Hopefully you got good healthcare. Now pay your bills so they won't be passed on to others following you.
We seem to have a problem here with who makes all the money,insurance companies profit ratio is at 3%,I live in Houston and I can tell you Hospitals are building massive facilities all over Houston.How is this possible with a 2% profit ratio ?? I would say each facility probably cost over a 100 million each,2% profit the numbers just don't add up. Think about it look at a hospital bill you will see charges like a $300.00 asprin,$75.00 I.V that costs .75 cents,$175.00 box of tissues,$275 disposible ice pack,the list goes on for ever.I beg to differ on the healt care issues.P.S my total bill was $45,000.00 in that range for a simple appendectomy,that normally runs around $12,500.00.
Conventional cancer "treatment" is an industry that profits from the suffering and death of millions of people. There are natural and more effective treatments for cancer than surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
Read "Cancer - Step Outside the Bic" by Ty M. Bollinger.
The book is available from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Step-Outside-Box-5th/dp/0978806506/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/185-7676123-4466528
Get ALL the facts before you decide on your cancer treatment.
 I have serious reservations about this as reported. Here are some of my concerns.
I assume that all with positive screens in both groups got some sort of intervention. Were the interventions all the same?
How many people with a positive screening tests didn't have cancer? This is called a false positive and it means that biopsy or surgery was unnecessary. My guess is that the false positive rate for spiral CT is high and likely unacceptable.
The study finished in 2007, 3 years ago. It is customary to measure lung cancer survivals at 5 year intervals. Because xray chest films can only detect larger tumors, those diagnosed by this method tend to have shorter life spans from time of diagnosis. What makes the researchers think that those diagnosed with lung cancer by CT will survive the full 5 years in comparison to the x-ray only group? The most valid time to publish the study would be at the end of 5 years to accurately compare the two methods.
I agree about the false positives.
I am an ex-smoker (quit 10 years ago) but have COPD. I get a CT Scan every year. 4 years ago, my scan showed 2 anomalies that, 1) could be the start of small cell carcinoma, or 2) granulomas (left overs from TB I got in 'Nam).
I had the surgery to wedge out the two anomalies at UCSF and they were found to be granulomas (thankfully). But I was in the hospital for 7 days.
Or,,,,,,,they could have been cancer that would have been totally missed until the tumor(s) became large enough to be visible on a standard X-ray and by that time, maybe out of reach of treatment.
My cost, after insurance payments, about $3,200. Without insurance it would have been around $45,000. And some of you don't want "Obama Care", give me a break.
Do you really think with Obama Care you would have even gotten in to see a doctor? Gov't insurance will mean longer waits to get appointments and then even longer waits to get treatment. Research as we know it will slow down. When you socialize medicine you take away a lot of incentive to spend lots of money to find a cure. Oh, and when they do that, more taxes. You're lucky to be alive. As a former smoker, you might have been put at the bottom of the list.
Comments like this truly make me wonder where people get their facts. First of all, Socialized Medicine and Universal Healthcare are not the same thing (despite what FoxNews has told you). And secondly, we have more than one form of "Socialized" medicine in the good ol' US already, and have for decades! What is medicare? What funds state medi caid programs? What about healthcare in the military?
I will just never understand this sense of entitlement people have when it comes to healthcare. Why does one child DESERVE a better doctor than another because of the family he's born into. Why should this smoker get better treatment than that smoker because of his wallet? There should be no profit motive to medicine.
Two words: HEART DISEASE
According to the CDC, greater than 630,000 people died of heart disease in the U.S. in 2006. This is ~25% of all deaths in the U.S. and four-times the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer. In 2010, heart disease will cost the U.S. approximately $316 billion.
p.s. - smoking is one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease
Radon gas also causes Lung Cancer. It can seep into any home through cracks and holes in the foundation. So many people are not educated about the risk of Radon Gas. Everyone needs to test their homes for Radon gas levels. Some parts of the country are more prone than others. You can pick up a test kit at any County Extension office for approx. $5. You can learn all about Radon at www.epa.gov/radon
mikensamantonio heres hoping that your mom, wife, daughter, sister, father, son, and you never develope breast cancer.
Tobacco contains minute quantities of radioactive isotopes of uranium and thorium series (210Pb, 210Po and 226Ra), which are radioactive carcinogenic. Smoking of tobacco and its products increases the internal intake and radiation dose due to natural radionuclides. In a number of studies, inhalation of some naturally occurring radionuclides via smoking has been considered to be one of the most significant causes of lung cancer. (N. Abd El-Aziza, A.E.M. Khatera, , and H.A. Al-Sewaidan)
Keep smoking and my job security will stay high.
Is this natural in the tobacco or an additive to cigarettes?
Mostly naturally occuring.
The basic reason people can't quit is addiction to nicotine. Nicotine by itself does not cause lung cancer. It is the reast of the stuff in the cigarette/cigar that does the damage.
If someone can't quit the puffing, at least move on to a patch or gum.
Michael, thanks for the answer. I agree with you about all the additives found in cigarettes and I feel mostly cheap cigars. I used to smoke cigs years ago at work and a pipe at home but quit the cigs 23 years ago and smoke pipe only with natural tobacco. I know that's not perfect but I immediately found a huge improvement in my lungs when I quit smoking cigs. My lungs have always been extremely strong even though I smoke a pipe. My c/t scans I am getting right now for pancreatic cancer show that my lungs are doing good. While I know any smoking can be bad I don't believe the pipe tobacco is anything like the cigs with up to 300 chemicals added in to each cig. P.S. My cancer is said to be hereditary since my father and my aunt on my mother's side both died of the same cancer.
In 2001 I was diagnosed with a spot on my lung, with a chest xray. Had a CTscan and was watched very carefully for 6 months. Another CTscan at 6 months, and then a PETscan. The spot on my lung had changed, and a decision was made to remove the left lower lobe on my lung. It was removed, and yes it was cancer. All areas were checked, and no margins were found. I was so frightened, and could hardly look at anyone, including my surgeon and his associates. The surgery was done, and I have had many follow up visits, with best results, no cancer seen in other CTscans since. However in the past 3 to 4 years I have developed severe COPD, and am on Oxygen 24/7. It is now 2010 and I would reccomend a chest xray or CTscan for everyone with coughing, bronchial problems, smoking, and living in an area with high polution. My life has been saved, and I have a good quality of life, and I feel so special.
The surgeons at Mayo Hospital Arizona are the best, but all of you that believe in xray, CTscans are the greatest. Please keep on asking for the scans.
Hugs
Marlene
I've been a Rad (and CT) Tech for years, and it seems as though every six months, there's a wave of stories in the media about how diagnostic imaging increases the risks of cancer, mammograms do more harm than good, etc. Most of these stories only show one side of an ongoing debate amongst health care professionals, and the hack journalists who crank out many of these stories couldn't tell the difference for themselves. Even so, many people see these articles and become unduly alarmed, even to the point of foregoing exams scheduled by their physicians. I've had parents with their children in the hospital, scared to death to let the tots be imaged as a result of these articles.
Sometimes, I wish they'd do us all a favor and find another subject for this panic attack journalism. They're not helping anyone but themselves.
David, If you read my post 4.2 I agree with you totally. I have an excellent radiation oncologist with Moffitt in Tampa that explained it to me the other day and took all my fears away. Thank you for your input on this as it helps with the amount of worries I face every day not to have to worry about this one. He says I have plenty of options left including another round of radiation therapy for my liver if deemed necessary.
Many people in this thread seem to be fixated with the cost of CT scans... This is just another example of how our healthcare system is broken. While obviously it is a more elaborate procedure that requires different techs to perform the scan and actual radiologists to interpret the readings... is it REALLY justifiable to charge $1000 for? A CT can be completed and read in much less than an hour and it is completely acceptable to charge 1000 dollars? I can assure you that $1000 worth of supplies or wages are NOT being expended in that hour. Profit is being made by somebody somewhere at the expense of peoples lives. Price gouging is prosecutable in almost all areas of business but it's good to go in the healthcare field.
The bottom line is that even though lung cancer can be caused by other reasons, it is understood that smoking doesn't help your cause. Also, no matter what we do people are going to continue to smoke, this isn't something that's just gained popularity in the past generation. So.... If early detection and prevention is a realistic possibility then how could anyone oppose it? This needs to happen and it needs to be a realistic option for all people not only those who can dish out a crazy amount of money
Very few hospitals make a percentage margin greater than any other business. Most other businesses don't have a collection problem like most hospitals.
If a hospital has an emergency room, and takes reimbursement from the Federal government, it is duly bound to treat everyone who comes throught the door. EXCLUDING illegal immigrants, roughly 25% of the emergency room visits to an urban hospital are made by people who cannot afford the visit. The hospital eats that cost and it is passed along to those with the financial capacity (checkbook or insurance) to pay.
The cost of a scanner is ~$3.5 million. It will take 3,500 scans at $1,000/scan just to pay for the equipment.
You forgot to factor in the cost of a CT machine that can exceed $500,000 installed. Also factor in replacing the tube sometimes as frequently as twice a year at $30,000 per occurance. Don't forget, you don't get an electric bill, housekeeping bill, etc. When most hospitals are operating in the red and many have had to close their doors, it is obvious that healthcare is expensive. Aslo don't forget that many insurances including medicare pay pennies on the charges for billed charges.
Unless you own a $1,500,000 CT machine (new ones can cost this much), pay a steep annual maintenance agreement to keep it running, employ multiple CT techs, office staff, billing office staff, and pay for the utilities to keep the energy-draining beast running, you really can't say you've walked a mile in that person's footsteps and can adequately judge the cost of the study...Let alone the value to the patient whose cancer is discovered. And let's not even get started with what is actually paid by the insurance companies...the $1000 you quote is only what is billed- never even close to what is actually paid.
I'm not arguing with the fact that the equipment is expensive, nor am I saying that maintaining and operating that equipment is cheap. My only point is that there are many other companies, businesses, etc. that provide a service to people with very expensive equipment and people aren't being charged $1000 a pop. And by the way I'm not talking what is billed and what is actually paid, just making a very generic statement. Here is a very bad example and I'm sure people can tell me about how the comparison isn't relevent... but, how much does a Boeing 747 cost? My guess is more than a million, now as long as we're not making a trans-pacific flight do we drop a grand to get on the plane? My only point is that there are major financial problems the the U.S. healthcare industry and like I said somebody is making major profit... I never said it was the techs, or the hospitals themselves but I haven't seen many headlines lately about companies who build CT machines going out of business.
Here is a fact in forsyth county hospital nc a pet scan cost is $4800 to read the test is $485 a regular cat scan with contrast is $1800 and $375 to read it.
My wife has nonsmokers lung cancer and just had these done in the last 2 months AND she doesn't have health ins this was cash payment.
The bottom line is this, any cancer treatment is very expensive cancer is big business every doctor my wife has seen charges close to double than a general doctor. My wife has been going thru this now for 3 months first time either one of us has been sick (in our 50's) and has this been an eye opener for us how much the health care is screwed up. They don't want to cure cancer there is to much money in treating it so far $54,000 out of pocket and the chemo hasn't started yet. So much for retirement the ira's are gone. This will end up around $75,000 and she will still die from it . how much do you spend to prolong life when there is no cure?
Rick531950- How about people that eat high fat diets? Should they have to pay for the tests and heart surgeries to help them? You seem to think we should punish people for smoking because they know it's bad for them. Well if that's how you think then people who have awful diets should get the same treatment.
How about people with addictions? Or how about pregnancy? It was because of something the person did.
We're trying to cut healthcare costs and now the government says it is OK to get those expensive CT scans.
The left hand does not know what it is doing.
Let's have a little fun with the numbers.
Crudely extrapolating from the numbers in the article, let's say that CT scans actually prevent deaths in 1 out of every 500 people scanned (in the study it was 1 out of 530 after some period of time). At $5000 per scan, that means one life can be extended for, let's say, 10 years for a cost of $2,500,000. So that's a cost of $250,000 for every additional man-year of life.
Now, in England, you wouldn't get that treatment because the death panels there will only pay $80,000 for one year of life. But since we haven't quite run out of other people's money here, let's say we'll try to pay for it. Next, let's suppose we find lots of other procedures that will extend each and every person's life for one year at a cost of $250,000. And when that year is up, yet another $250K will extend life for yet another year.
What would be the likely result?
The per capita income in this country is less than $50k per year, so at most 1 person in 5 could have the procedures. The entire GDP would go for health care for those people. Everyone else would starve to death out in the cold.
If ObamaCare were the model, we'd tax the rich into near poverty to buy CT scans for the poor smokers who were prudent enough NOT to buy health insurance.
Is this a great country or what?
why ten years though? why not 20? or 30?
Huge assumptions in your numbers...to be at all close to accurate, you would have to take into account the type of cancer, adeno vs squamous, small cell vs non small cell, then the grade, then the stage, age of the patient...it would probably take a second study or a good analysis of the NNT of this study to really calculate the true cost
Conventional cancer "treatment" is an industry that profits from the suffering and death of millions of people. There are natural and more effective treatments for cancer than surgery, radiation and chemotherapy.
Read "Cancer - Step Outside the Bic" by Ty M. Bollinger.
The book is available from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Step-Outside-Box-5th/dp/0978806506/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top/185-7676123-4466528
Get ALL the facts before you decide on your cancer treatment.