Yes, it's all about the bottom line. So what are we supposed to believe now from these "studies" that early detection doesn't help? I will listen to my doctor, and my gut feelings, over some "study." What happened to the report that said CT scans almost guaranteed cancer?

I've had friends and relatives die from small-cell lung cancer over a few decades. All were cigarette smokers.

Long-term survival rates for people who have been diagnosed with small-cell lung cancer that has spread beyond the lungs is statistically insignificant. This hasn't changed since records were analyzed in the '50's.

Actually, mammograms and prostate antigen tests were found to be terrible screening tests for an entire population. Too many false positives show up and too many healthy people have to undergo testing, biopsy, radiation, and chemo--when the lesions were not cancerous in the first place.

It's not about the bottom line--it's about doing what's actually effective. If lung x-rays don't work, why do them? More testing doesn't mean better medicine.

Tell your story to the multitudes of breast cancer survivors due to routine screenings.

Bart Conner

too many healthy people have to undergo testing, biopsy, radiation, and chemo--when the lesions were not cancerous in the first place.

Exactly what planet are you from? Biopsy generally follows both a PSA and a PSA2 test. The ideal is a dye enhanced MRI ($5000) before biopsy but a biopsy is less expensive ($1800). No one undergoes radiation or chemo without a biopsy lab positive.

Actually, mammograms and prostate antigen tests were found to be terrible screening tests for an entire population. Too many false positives show up and too many healthy people have to undergo testing, biopsy, radiation, and chemo--when the lesions were not cancerous in the first place.

A mammogram helped detect my mother's breast cancer, which was so close to her chest wall that neither she, her GYN, or her breast surgeon ever felt her breast mass (and my mother was diligent about performing her self breast exams monthly).

Considering that years later her cancer recurred and spread to her lungs (ultimately killing her), I'm more than willing to go through the pain of a biopsy if ANY lesion shows up in my mammograms. It would be wonderful to have a breast MRI done (since my own risk for breast cancer is high), but my insurance won't pay for it.

@Rowan - we can thank the insurance companies for contributing to our illnesses. My Mom died from lung cancer. As someone who had previously been a smoker and had COPD, when she initially started feeling bad her insurance company would not authorize the CT scan. Her pulmonary doctor didn't do a thing to help her get it either. After a year and worsening symptoms her primary care physician argued with the insurance company and finally had the scan approved. Unfortunately, it was a bit too late for her. She died just a few weeks later.

If I were you I'd ask my Dr. if he / she would fight for that MRI. Some doctors are willing to go to bat for their patients.

Rowan-

You are not a normal average American woman with an average amount of risk for breast cancer. These recommendations apply only to normal risk people. Additionally, there is no recommendation to discontinue mammograms, only to be more conservative in their application to people with normal risk.

But.... if you increase the number of annual x-rays enough, ya won't die of lung cancer. You'll die of radiation poisoning. Problem solved.....

Wow, are you an idiot!

No one is saying the x-rays cure lung cancer! They thought that lung X-rays would catch the disease early so you could operate and do chemo and prevent death.

The article says that doesn't work, so stop doing routine chest xrays.

I think not. I based that comment on the basis of the topic and the very first sentence on the article. It did not state that X-ray's does not helped to indicate the presence of cancer cells but that it stated X-rays don't prevent lung cancer deaths.

The same as the article I followed up my comments of the actual use of an X-ray. Bear in mind that prior to the existence of Cat Scans and modern scientific advances X-rays are used to detect most anomaly inside the human body. It is not a perfect detection unit and nobody says so. In fact doctors have to do an intrusive examination and biopsies before they can say that there is a definitive cancer cells and whether it is malignant or not or just a mere muscle build-up or whatever the heck is the medical term for those.

I sincerely believe that your statement to stop doing routine chest X-rays is a far more dangerous statement that these studies are trying to imply.

So, what do you suggest. When a person is having a hard time breathing and is spitting blood or coughing a lot ... do not do Chest X-rays and instead subject the person to the very expensive C Scans. I think that is extremely idiotic for a medical practitioner who knows his business to prescribe such an action.

To pay thousands of dollars instead of the nominal less than $100 for a chest X-ray to have a preliminary look and diagnostic examination of a good medical practice to arrive at a means of making a decision to tell his/her patient that a more intensive C Scan is necessary to assure definitive conclusion.

To you, maybe who have a substantial financial status or a very good health insurance it is feasible because you do not care that insurance of those who can not afford will go up because people like you abuse the system and would not tolerate a preliminary exam but rather go to the extreme just to find out later on that what you are experiencing is a mere severe case of bronchitis or minimal PTB.

It is a sad state when I just read a newspaper item about a person who because they refuse to wait a little longer choose to go somewhere else to get an operation done. Had they choose to stay they would have paid nothing but instead they are now saddled with thousands of dollars. Now, they went public and say that it is not fair that they have to pay so much and that the government should have shouldered the cost.

Sometimes people are selfish and think nothing but themselves regardless of whether their actions will actually affect others for the simple reason that they I do believe do not give a da#@$mn.

Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging? I don't think it causes cancer,unlike CT scans.

I agree with Bart on this Marcel- you don't seem to have actually comprehended what this article was about. you demonstrate that over and over again in your writing. and I am pretty sure I read the same article you did

Marcel-

X-rays are used as a screening tool. It is common practice with screening tools to evaluate them on the reduction of death, rather than on the cancer caught. This article does not say anything about using x-rays to treat cancer.

but tax payers paid for your stupidity. Did you ever get an education?

WOW!!! SOMEONE actually thinks that having an x-ray will prevent lung cancer. DO TELL how that is supposed to happen? Or do you just THINK you are smarter than everyone? There is NO way that getting an x-ray can prevent cancer...NO WAY!!! It might DETECT it (which means you ALREADY have it) but not PREVENT it. LEARN IT!!! Go crawl back under your rock you are out of your league. Do YOU even pay taxes? ...lol...lol...lol.

Truth-

X-rays are used as a screening tool for lung cancer. It is common practice to state results of screening studies in the number of deaths prevented. A screening tool that is effective will significantly reduce the number of deaths from that cancer.

It DETECTS cancer but does NOT prevent it.

If a test can locate a cancer early, treatment may be more effective and may therefore prevent a death - not the cancer itself. I know that the barrage of conflicting information we get continuously and especially information that challenges what we have been told before is frustrating. However, people need to understand that any recommendations are based on the best available information at the time. As new technologies develop and are utilized to study any given problem, the information may become clearer and the recommendations may change. This is called science.

The articles point, and what I commented on, was that x-rays DON'T prevent cancer...PERIOD. You can spin it anyway you like but the FACT remains the same.

Say what? A trained radiologist reads every Xray, CT, MRI, and PET scan done. Where did you pull that from?

the whole point of the article is that chest x-rays DON'T tell you who is going to die. they do not give an accurate image of cancer until it is quite advanced. a CT will pick cancer up at a much earlier stage

Your so right about inhaling dangerous chemicals I think I will start wearing a gas mask.

How about STOP SMOKING?

More worried about the over 1000 suspected carcinogens that I am exposed to on a daily bases.

True that there are lots of things we are exposed to but smoking is a concentrated dose that one exposes them self (and others) to on purpose. I agree that stopping smoking would be for the best but good luck telling folks that one. You will just get a 10 minute speech about how this is America so I can do whatever I want.

Bart Conner

How about STOP SMOKING?

How about non-smoking lung cancer patients?

My father smoke like a chimney. He smokes Vegas cigars. He and his friends play poker until the wee hours of the morning. He has only one lung because his other lung was removed when he suffered from serious lung disease(not cancer) due to working really hard and not eating right while working on an international shipping boat for a long time. He lived until he is 86 and to top it off he died in 1986. The reason for his death.... Old age. My godfather does not smoke, has 2 maids to clean the house, drinks very little, sleeps 8 hours daily, take his health ethics seriously, a manager at a big manufacturing plant, plays golf a lot and has a car and a driver to go around.

He died in 1977. The reason... lung cancer.

So tell me again how does a person live longer?

By the way I am now 70 years old. I drink a lot, gamble a lot, work continental shift (12 shift work) for 16 years, work 16 hours continuously in R&D for two years, 12 hours for 10 years in the metal industry where we used chlorine to clean up the metal melted inside the furnace until I reach 60. Now I take everything in moderation and only smoke when I am in a party. Untill now I am still working my ass off while most of those who I work with when I was working in the Petrochemical industry are dead because of ...you know, what.. Cancer.

I am afraid with my bad habits I may be dead by the time I reach 100. Well, unfortunately you can not have it all.

Marcel-

Smoking does not mean that you will get lung cancer. Smoking means that your risk of lung cancer is much higher than a person who does not smoke. Genetics and other risk factors contribute as well.

The exact same thing just happened to my mother-in-law. She had a chest xray to look for pneumonia and they found a spot of cancer. It was removed and she was declared cancer free and no need for chemo. Without that chest xray it would have been a much less happy outcome.

To say that x-rays are not an overall effective screening tool does not mean that they do not work sometimes. It simply means that they are not as effective as they hoped or want.

Same here... My father's lung cancer was also detected by an X-ray.

Well, it was detected during a routine screening, but the the doctor didn't pay attention to the "area of concern" note from the radiologist. So no action was taken and we weren't informed. Fortunately enough - he had another X-Ray as a pre-op routine before some back surgery a few months later where it was noticed. First time he could say he's lucky to have back problems - otherwise he'd probably be dead now.

Point being, perhaps some of the reason the Xrays aren't a good measure is the people using them, not so much the XRay itself? I'm sure dad is a rare case, but it still happened.

Of course - the same people trying to cut these costs (insurance) also are protecting the a-hole doctors who don't do their jobs, so we really have no recourse against this clown. Notice this study seems to say "do nothing" as opposed to "do something else". Why? $$$$$ I have no doubt in my mind that a study has been done by insurance that says it'll be more profitable for less screenings, people progress farther, die sooner and require less costly treatment. Not a doubt in my mind at all.

chainsaw, what would have happened if you'd never had the x-ray?

I was diagnosed at age 37 with an aggressive form of breast cancer. The ONLY reason it was discovered was because I worked in an OB/GYN office and the practitioners were pretty big on screening exams. I was "peer-pressured" into it. Come to find out, after seven surgeries, chemo and radiation, that my aunt had also been diagnosed with breast cancer at age 37. She lived less than a year, it was 1949.

Insurers are just trying to save themselves money. X-rays also diagnose other conditions besides cancer. Don't let your doctors bully you based on studies that are "cost-cutting" measures.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove/prove an average. You can disagree all you want because of your particular case, but that doesn't mean anything.

Wait, you thought they were saying an absolute? Try critical reading next time.

Mitchell

I think your comments are biased. The accuracy of the CT Scans is not in question. No one will argue that point. However, the importance of the CXR as you aptly put it is basic.

If you are not feeling well because of internal problems the most common approach is to have a X-ray. The result will come in immediately depends on the availability of a Radiologist. In most cases less than 48 hours. Now, what does a good family physician do in cases like this? I will tell you what my family doctor will do. She will order a CT Scan because I am still suffering and the X-ray did not find anything wrong.

In this scenario, the additional expense of thousands of dollars using a CT Scan is more than justified.

A CT Scan is important but so is an X-ray as a preliminary look at the source of trouble without necessarily committing thousands of dollars for an ailment that may not be necessary.

As for the case of a comment earlier that had he had a CT Scan three months earlier rather than an X-ray, he would have had a tumor treated 3 months earlier. I say changed your physician. He/she is not worth the diploma or certification he/she is posting on his/her wall. In essence it is not the fault of the X-ray but a question of doctor's competency.

Put the blame where it rightly belongs.

Truth be told, I do not believe cancer can be totally eliminated nor reduced considerably. Zieg 1087 stated a clear acceptance of the fact that most cancer trigger mechanism are genetically engineered.

I sincerely believe this to be a fact because of the incidence of cancer related deaths. Even in the family structure who are cancer prone, the cancer cause varies so much that it would take a tremendous amount of money to even study the cause and effect more so if we try to eradicate it.

Once a certain cancer is found to be near success in the prevention and cure, others crop up like crazy. I will get hammered with this, but I do believe that cancer is one of the way God, along with weather and natural disaster has left in order to control increase in population. I have no doubt whatsoever that if mankind will be successful in eradicating cancer the world will be immersed in plagues and wars so violent that population will be reduced dramatically.

I sincerely think mankind is getting way over their head and should already minimized research in lengthening further human life because there will come a time when the planet will not be able to sustain life.

I am for continuing research in making those suffering to undergo operations and medical prescriptions to minimize pain and to extend life a little further but to achieve eradication I believe is way too much to ask for.