What to Know About Your Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Prognosis
Key takeaways
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer. NSCLC grows and spreads less aggressively than small cell lung cancer.
The outlook for people with NSCLC depends on several factors, the most important of which is the stage of the disease.
Doctors can treat NSCLC with surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, and targeted therapies. Success depends on the cancer stage and tumor genetics, as well as other factors.
Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the most common type of lung cancer. NSCLC grows and spreads less aggressively than small-cell lung cancer.
This means that doctors can treat it successfully with surgery, chemotherapy, and other medical treatments. Your prognosis will vary, but the earlier a diagnosis is made, the better the outlook.
Smoking is the leading cause of NSCLC and other types of lung cancer. Other risk factors include:
exposure to asbestos
air and water pollutants
secondhand smoke
What's the prognosis with NSCLC?
The prognosis for NSCLC depends on several factors.
The most important factor is the stage of the disease. The 5-year survival rate is the percentage of people with that stage of cancer that are alive 5 years after diagnosis.
The current survival rates for NSCLC are based on the data of people who received an NSCLC diagnosis between 2012 and 2018. According to the American Cancer Society, the 5-year survival rates for NSCLC are:
Localized: 65%
Regional: 37%
Distant: 9%
Other factors can also affect your individual outlook. These can include:
your subtype of NSCLC
specific genetic mutations in the tumor
how well the tumor responds to treatment
your age and overall health
When you receive a diagnosis of NSCLC, it's natural to feel overwhelmed. It's important to work with your team of doctors and specialists to come up with a treatment plan for your particular situation.
You may work with a primary doctor, surgeon, oncologist, radiologist, and other specialists. Together, they'll develop a treatment plan, answer your questions, and address your concerns.
How is NSCLC staged?
If you're diagnosed with NSCLC, your doctor will stage your cancer. Staging shows how far the cancer has spread and informs your treatment plan.
For accurate staging, a doctor orders a variety of pre-staging diagnostic tests. These tests may include:
biopsies
ultrasounds
MRIs
bronchoscopies
surgery
CT scans
PET scans
The stages of lung cancer include localized, regional, and distant. These stages are defined as:
Localized: cancer is only in the lungs
Regional: cancer has spread outside the lungs to nearby structures, like the lymph nodes
Distant: cancer has spread to distant organs like the liver or brain
The earlier the stage at the time of diagnosis, the more likely the cancer will be treatable.
When lung cancer is diagnosed at later stages, the possibility of a cure may be low. Instead, the goal of treatment may focus on managing the growth of the cancer and preventing it from spreading to other areas outside the lung.
Treating NSCLC
Early stage treatments
Treatment for NSCLC varies depending on the stage of the cancer and your health.
For early stage lung cancer, surgery may be successful at removing the entire tumor and cancer cells. In some cases, no other treatment is needed.
In other cases, along with surgery, you may need treatments like chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapies, radiation, or a combination to eliminate any remaining cancer cells.
You may also receive other treatments, such as medication for pain, infection, or nausea, to help reduce any uncomfortable symptoms or side effects of treatment.
Treatment for late stage NSCLC
Chemo and other treatments, such as immunotherapy and targeted therapies, can help slow or stop the growth of cancer cells if the cancer has spread or you're not healthy enough for surgery.
In most cases, the goal of treatment is to help relieve symptoms and prolong life rather than to cure the cancer.
Radiation is another option for treating tumors that cannot be removed surgically. It involves targeting tumors with high energy radiation to shrink or eliminate them.
Treatment for symptoms
In addition to treatments designed to slow, halt, or eliminate cancer cells, you may need additional care to help relieve your symptoms.
Tumors can cause pain, and even if they can't be eliminated completely, their growth can be slowed with chemotherapy, radiation, or lasers. A doctor can create a treatment plan to help ease any pain you have.
Tumors in the airways of the lungs can cause difficulty breathing. Laser therapy, or a treatment called photodynamic therapy, can shrink tumors that are blocking your airways. This can help restore normal breathing.
Frequently asked questions
What is the life expectancy with non-small cell lung cancer?
A person's life expectancy with non-small cell lung cancer depends on the cancer stage, subtype, specific tumor mutations, and other factors such as age and overall health.
The 5-year average survival rate ranges from 9–65%, depending on the extent of disease.
How treatable is non-small cell lung cancer?
Doctors can treat NSCLC with surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, immunotherapy, and targeted therapies. The success of treatments can depend on the cancer stage and tumor genetics, as well as other factors.
What is the most aggressive lung cancer?
Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is more aggressive than non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
38 minutes ago
- Washington Post
A judge could advance Purdue Pharma's $7B opioid settlement after all 50 states back it
All 50 U.S. states have agreed to the OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma 's latest plan to settle thousands of lawsuits over the toll of opioids . A judge on Wednesday is being asked to clear the way for local governments and individual victims to vote on it. Government entities, emergency room doctors, insurers, families of children born into withdrawal from the powerful prescription painkiller, individual victims and their families and others would have until Sept. 30 to vote on whether to accept the deal, which calls for members of the Sackler family who own the company to pay up to $7 billion over 15 years.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Should the GMC Regulate Doctors on Social Media?
Dr Arya Anthony Kamyab Doctors have always held strong opinions, but where these were once exchanged in the privacy of hospital corridors, they are now broadcast globally via posts on social media platforms. In January 2024, the General Medical Council (GMC) issued updated guidance titled "Using Social Media as a Medical Professional." This document underscores the importance of maintaining professionalism, upholding patient trust, and establishing clear boundaries online. Among its central tenets is this recommendation: 'You must not use social media to abuse, discriminate against, bully, harass or deliberately target any individual or group.' Implementing this principle raises difficult questions. Where is the line between legitimate critique and perceived harassment? Is a doctor who publicly challenges unsafe working conditions within the NHS engaging in necessary advocacy or crossing a line by targeting leadership? Are discussions about the role of physician associates constructive criticism or professional bullying? The GMC offers little definitional clarity, placing doctors in ethically ambiguous territory. In practice, social media has become an increasingly fraught space for healthcare professionals. Platforms such as X are rife with disputes — among colleagues, with administrators, and increasingly directed at the GMC itself. The ongoing debate around physician associates has inflamed tensions further, with allegations ranging from misinformation and professional gatekeeping to outright bullying. While the GMC has acknowledged the increasingly toxic tone of online discourse, its response has largely been limited to expressions of concern rather than decisive action. This leads to a broader, more contentious question: Should the GMC be responsible for regulating physicians' conduct on social media at all? Some argue that professionalism is not confined to clinical settings and that behaviour inconsistent with medical ethics, regardless of context, undermines public trust. Others view such oversight as overreach, contending that physicians retain the right to express personal views outside of work. The GMC now finds itself in a delicate position. Excessive enforcement risks accusations of censorship and the stifling of free expression; insufficient enforcement, however, may undermine its authority as a regulator. The power of professional regulation extends beyond legal authority — it includes reputational impact. A doctor facing a tribunal over an online post may endure not only formal investigation but also public scrutiny and reputational damage. Free to Misinform? It is tempting to view this free speech debate from a legalistic standpoint: Free speech is a right, and any interference is therefore a violation. But this simplifies what is a very complex moral discussion. Doctors occupy a very privileged epistemic position. Our speech is not just personal expression; it carries what can be referred to as epistemic weight. When doctors speak, people listen, and they often shape their actions in response. This could be dismissed as their responsibility, but to say so is to be naive about the forces that influence human behaviour. During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors who spread misinformation didn't just express unpopular views; they misled millions precisely because they were trusted by the public. Any ethical analysis must therefore conclude that doctors, by virtue of their training and the trust they hold, bear a higher moral burden. Their views must meet a threshold of intellectual honesty and evidential rigour. Has it therefore ever been more important for doctors to understand the hierarchy of evidence and the scientific method as a route to knowledge? The Value of Dissent We must resist the impulse to reduce all nonconforming speech to danger, however. Recognising that not all nonconforming speech is equal is also vital. There is a long tradition of those who challenged prevailing consensus and were vindicated over time: Ignaz Semmelweis, a pioneer of antiseptics; and Gregor Mendel, with his groundbreaking studies on inheritance, to name just two. But what separates such figures from conspiracists and pseudo-intellectuals is not what they challenged but how they did it. If one engages critically with the evidence, welcomes scrutiny, and embraces the methodology of the scientific process, then dissenting speech becomes not only valid but vital. Therefore, if the GMC wishes to guide online professionalism without veering towards censorship, it must distinguish between these types of speech. However, the danger is that even the most well-intentioned guidance can become irrelevant in the context of social media. Social media is not a neutral forum. Its algorithms do not select for truth. Rather, it is an attention economy optimised for outrage, tribalism, and performance. Platforms such as X reward impulsiveness and reactivity over reflection and deliberation. If social media's algorithms are designed to fuel hyperbole and outrage, can professionalism be meaningfully maintained within this space?
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Something in Your Poop May Predict an Imminent Death
The contents of a patient's entrails could be key to assessing how close they are to death. No, it's not some form of living haruspicy. A team of doctors led by Alexander de Porto of the University of Chicago and the University of Amsterdam has created an index of markers in a patient's feces that can help gauge the risk of mortality within 30 days. They have named it the metabolic dysbiosis score (MDS), and it could help save the lives of critically ill patients in medical intensive care. Their results, they caution, require further investigation and validation, but offer exciting promise as a future tool for diagnostic medicine. "The findings suggest that fecal metabolic dysbiosis, quantified through the MDS, holds potential as a biomarker to identify critically ill patients at increased risk of mortality," de Porto and his colleagues, Eric Pamer and Bhakti Patel of the University of Chicago, told ScienceAlert. "This underscores the importance of gut-derived metabolites as independent contributors to host resilience, offering an avenue for precision medicine." Critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units often develop severe syndromes such as sepsis and acute respiratory distress – but these syndromes don't always develop and evolve in the same way. This heterogeneity poses a huge challenge for trying to treat these patients; two patients with the same syndrome may respond to the same treatment very differently. One way to circumvent this challenge, the researchers said, is to identify specific traits to treat rather than attacking the whole syndrome at once. Scientists know that critically ill patients often have reduced diversity in their gut microbiota, as well as altered concentrations of the metabolites produced by their microbiomes. De Porto and his colleagues embarked on an investigation into dysbiosis, an imbalance in the gut microbiome, in critically ill patients, as a trait that could be treated. They studied fecal samples collected from 196 patients exhibiting respiratory failure or shock, dividing them into a training cohort of 147 patients and a validation cohort of 49 patients. They used these samples to develop the MDS, based on concentrations of 13 distinct fecal metabolites. The results indicate an auspicious avenue for further investigation. "The MDS performed well in predicting mortality in the training cohort of medical ICU patients, with 84 percent accuracy, 89 percent sensitivity, and 71 percent specificity," the researchers said. "However, the validation cohort, despite showing similar trends, failed to reach statistical significance, probably due to its smaller sample size. These findings highlight the promise of the MDS but also underscore the necessity to validate its predictive capacity and generalizability in independent cohorts before widespread application." What the researchers found particularly interesting is that, even though a lack of diversity in the microbiome has previously been associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients, they could find no such link. Instead, their results showed a strong link between dysbiosis and increased mortality risk, suggesting that an imbalance in the microbiome plays a crucial role in patient health. A lot more work needs to be done before the team's approach is suitable for clinical application. The null result in the validation cohort of just 47 patients shows that quite a bit of refinement is required. However, there are several encouraging points. The lab has shown, for instance, that fecal metabolites can identify liver transplant patients who have a higher risk of developing a post-operative infection. In addition, while specific treatments have not yet been investigated or identified, the MDS indicates some pathways for further exploration. "The metabolites comprising the score, such as short-chain fatty acids, bile acids, and tryptophan metabolites, point to biological pathways that might be targeted therapeutically," the researchers said. "Potential interventions might include dietary changes, administration of probiotics, or direct supplementation with these metabolites." The next step is to work on validating MDS in new sets of patients, and to examine whether the link between the observed dysbioses and the increased mortality risk is causal or symptomatic of another cause. "Subsequently," the researchers said, "intervention trials targeting specific metabolites or metabolic pathways are necessary to assess therapeutic benefits." The research has been published in Science Advances. Long-Term Contraceptive Pill Use Linked With Brain Tumor Risk Just One Night of Poor Sleep Can Change How Your Brain Sees Food Insulin Isn't Just Made by The Pancreas. Here's Another Location Few Know About.
