would lung cancer fatalities become negligible

[freepcrusher]

if the various hospital systems out there had a policy that anyone who is an admitted smoker, has to get a yearly x-ray once they turn 45 or so. I'd like to think that that would allow for people to catch it in its non-malignant phase and allow for more people to survive.

I mean I know for women, there has been a lot of money being put into stopping breast cancer (i.e. screening women after 40) and it seems to have done a lot on that front. Hell even when it is fatal, you have people like Olivia Newton John who had it for 25 years.

[freepcrusher]

Until the mid-60s when the surgeon general warned about the risk of smoking - how well known was the connection between smoking and lung cancer? One of my great grandfathers died a little under two months short of his 60th birthday from lung cancer in 1949. His son (my grandfather) said that there was always some suspicion among his mom and brothers - that smoking caused it.

[Del Tachi]

Even with regular imaging, its difficult to catch early-stage lung cancer because the structure of our lungs can apparently change a lot with age.  Benign lung nodules are pretty common to see, so regular screening would likely result in a lot of false alarms and overtreatment.

The best way to prevent cancer is to stop smoking if you haven't already done so.

[Torrain]

It’s complicated…

Some longitudinal studies have shown that regular screening improves detection. Lung cancer is infamous for being very hard to detect until something’s seriously wrong. My grandfather (a non-smoker, who lived/worked in a tobacco-filled environment) developed the disease, but wasn’t diagnosed until stage 3. Part of the problem is that there’s enough space in the lungs that growth is unobtrusive, unlike a skin lesion, which is noticed immediately.

But as Del Tachi says, this is hardly foolproof, and can run into some issues (again, lungs can be hard to scan, especially when the tumour is small). It’s true that over-medicalisation is a real problem at the minute. As much as it may give you peace of mind, it’s not plausible or helpful for doctors to remove every nodule you develop - exposing you to surgery (especially in major organs) can increase risks of other conditions, and development of benign growths are very common, even in high risk areas like mammary tissue. Do get them checked out - just don’t always expect them to be removed. >See here for an explainer<

And of course, he’s right that smoking prevention is one of the best ways to reduce caseload. Which is why many Western countries have sought to limit/discourage tobacco sales. It should be noted that a minority of lung cancer cases are caused by air pollution - and as smoking declines in the West, it is fairly likely to become the primary cause in a number of countries at some point in our lifetimes.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Until the mid-60s when the surgeon general warned about the risk of smoking - how well known was the connection between smoking and lung cancer? One of my great grandfathers died a little under two months short of his 60th birthday from lung cancer in 1949. His son (my grandfather) said that there was always some suspicion among his mom and brothers - that smoking caused it.

Small world.  My late grandma told me that as a kid in northern Michigan during the 1940s, she remembered a man who smoked and drove a ferry boat across the Straits of Mackinac.  He died shortly after developing cancer on his lip (presumably an oral or head and neck cancer), and in hindsight she was certain (as am I) that it was due to his smoking

[Lechasseur]

Now I will point out that if you have a History of smoking and a nodule is found, even if it is believed to be benign, the radiologist will have you screened again within a period of 6 months to make sure nothing's changed (at least that's the procedure in France, dunno about America).

Oh, and quit smoking now !