The ‘unworthy' cancer with a terrible survival rate and the program seeking to change it
The screening program will use low-dose CT scanners to check all heavy smokers aged 50 to 70.
By catching cancer at an earlier stage, when it can be more effectively treated, it is expected the program will save 12,000 lives over the next decade.
Smoking is the major risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 90 per cent of male and 65 per cent of female cases.
When the tobacco leaf is dried, two nitrosamine molecules are produced. When the tobacco is ignited, the nitrosamines enter the lungs, where they can mutate DNA, turning healthy cells cancerous.
Loading
Lung cancer itself is relatively survivable if caught early, as surgeons can remove the cancerous tissue.
'Our lungs are actually really remarkable. You can more or less remove one whole lung, and for the average person, they wouldn't notice,' says Professor Brian Oliver, a leading respiratory researcher at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney.
But that cuts both ways. Cancer can take over large parts of the lung without the patient even noticing. It is only once the tumour grows into an airway that a bloody cough can develop.
By this stage, it may be too late. Survival rates halve at each stage the cancer is detected after the first. Hence, the screening program.
A 2021 meta-analysis of nine screening pilots covering thousands of people found a 16 per cent reduction in lung-cancer mortality.
'We're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
Amy*
But the idea long struggled to get traction among policy-makers, says Brooke.
'We just don't blame other diseases like we do with lung cancer,' he says. 'When we started to talk about the prioritisation of lung cancer screening, others said that ovarian cancer was more worthy.'
The change came when advocates started taking a leaf from campaigns run by HIV-AIDS organisations in the '80s. 'A highly stigmatised community that had been pilloried for no reason,' says Brooke. 'We used that template.'
Loading
As with all screening programs, overdiagnosis remains a real risk.
East Asian countries have heavily promoted lung cancer screening over the past few decades. In response, many non-smokers – particularly women – presented for screening.
The result: a dramatic increase in lung surgeries, far above the actual rate of cancer detected.
Screening often catches slow-growing cancers that probably aren't life-threatening; about 9 per cent of cancers spotted in one pivotal trial are considered 'overdiagnosed'. This problem is exacerbated if you screen a low-risk population – such as non-smoking women.
'Even before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made, the clinicians in those countries are just going ahead with [surgery]. And then not even finding any cancer,' says Professor Katy Bell, an expert in overdiagnosis based at the University of Sydney. 'There is definitely potential for harm.'
Australia's program was designed with this in mind. That's why it targets only smokers.
The economics of lung cancer screening are also tricky; early estimates suggested it simply wasn't cost-effective. People who smoke are at higher risk of a range of diseases, not just lung cancer. Does catching cancer really change their life-expectancy?
It's not clear from the data we have. But health economists estimate for every $60,000 spent on the program, one Australian will enjoy an extra year of disease-free life – just within the cost-threshold the government is typically willing to pay.
Amy*, 27, is a smoker who 'comes from a family of smokers', some of whom have developed lung cancer. 'It's a growing, lingering fear in the back of my head,' she says.
Loading
She's delighted about the introduction of a screening program.
'I can understand where the stigma comes from. On the surface level, it is our choice to smoke,' she says.
'It's something I'm very aware of and working towards – I've tried quitting multiple times. But we're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
21 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The ‘unworthy' cancer with a terrible survival rate and the program seeking to change it
Lung cancer is particularly lethal because it is silent, with almost no symptoms until the disease has progressed. Forty-two per cent of diagnoses are for final-stage cancer, when it is almost too late for treatment. The screening program will use low-dose CT scanners to check all heavy smokers aged 50 to 70. By catching cancer at an earlier stage, when it can be more effectively treated, it is expected the program will save 12,000 lives over the next decade. Smoking is the major risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 90 per cent of male and 65 per cent of female cases. When the tobacco leaf is dried, two nitrosamine molecules are produced. When the tobacco is ignited, the nitrosamines enter the lungs, where they can mutate DNA, turning healthy cells cancerous. Loading Lung cancer itself is relatively survivable if caught early, as surgeons can remove the cancerous tissue. 'Our lungs are actually really remarkable. You can more or less remove one whole lung, and for the average person, they wouldn't notice,' says Professor Brian Oliver, a leading respiratory researcher at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney. But that cuts both ways. Cancer can take over large parts of the lung without the patient even noticing. It is only once the tumour grows into an airway that a bloody cough can develop. By this stage, it may be too late. Survival rates halve at each stage the cancer is detected after the first. Hence, the screening program. A 2021 meta-analysis of nine screening pilots covering thousands of people found a 16 per cent reduction in lung-cancer mortality. 'We're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.' Amy* But the idea long struggled to get traction among policy-makers, says Brooke. 'We just don't blame other diseases like we do with lung cancer,' he says. 'When we started to talk about the prioritisation of lung cancer screening, others said that ovarian cancer was more worthy.' The change came when advocates started taking a leaf from campaigns run by HIV-AIDS organisations in the '80s. 'A highly stigmatised community that had been pilloried for no reason,' says Brooke. 'We used that template.' Loading As with all screening programs, overdiagnosis remains a real risk. East Asian countries have heavily promoted lung cancer screening over the past few decades. In response, many non-smokers – particularly women – presented for screening. The result: a dramatic increase in lung surgeries, far above the actual rate of cancer detected. Screening often catches slow-growing cancers that probably aren't life-threatening; about 9 per cent of cancers spotted in one pivotal trial are considered 'overdiagnosed'. This problem is exacerbated if you screen a low-risk population – such as non-smoking women. 'Even before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made, the clinicians in those countries are just going ahead with [surgery]. And then not even finding any cancer,' says Professor Katy Bell, an expert in overdiagnosis based at the University of Sydney. 'There is definitely potential for harm.' Australia's program was designed with this in mind. That's why it targets only smokers. The economics of lung cancer screening are also tricky; early estimates suggested it simply wasn't cost-effective. People who smoke are at higher risk of a range of diseases, not just lung cancer. Does catching cancer really change their life-expectancy? It's not clear from the data we have. But health economists estimate for every $60,000 spent on the program, one Australian will enjoy an extra year of disease-free life – just within the cost-threshold the government is typically willing to pay. Amy*, 27, is a smoker who 'comes from a family of smokers', some of whom have developed lung cancer. 'It's a growing, lingering fear in the back of my head,' she says. Loading She's delighted about the introduction of a screening program. 'I can understand where the stigma comes from. On the surface level, it is our choice to smoke,' she says. 'It's something I'm very aware of and working towards – I've tried quitting multiple times. But we're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
The Age
21 hours ago
- The Age
The ‘unworthy' cancer with a terrible survival rate and the program seeking to change it
Lung cancer is particularly lethal because it is silent, with almost no symptoms until the disease has progressed. Forty-two per cent of diagnoses are for final-stage cancer, when it is almost too late for treatment. The screening program will use low-dose CT scanners to check all heavy smokers aged 50 to 70. By catching cancer at an earlier stage, when it can be more effectively treated, it is expected the program will save 12,000 lives over the next decade. Smoking is the major risk factor for lung cancer, responsible for 90 per cent of male and 65 per cent of female cases. When the tobacco leaf is dried, two nitrosamine molecules are produced. When the tobacco is ignited, the nitrosamines enter the lungs, where they can mutate DNA, turning healthy cells cancerous. Loading Lung cancer itself is relatively survivable if caught early, as surgeons can remove the cancerous tissue. 'Our lungs are actually really remarkable. You can more or less remove one whole lung, and for the average person, they wouldn't notice,' says Professor Brian Oliver, a leading respiratory researcher at the Woolcock Institute of Medical Research in Sydney. But that cuts both ways. Cancer can take over large parts of the lung without the patient even noticing. It is only once the tumour grows into an airway that a bloody cough can develop. By this stage, it may be too late. Survival rates halve at each stage the cancer is detected after the first. Hence, the screening program. A 2021 meta-analysis of nine screening pilots covering thousands of people found a 16 per cent reduction in lung-cancer mortality. 'We're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.' Amy* But the idea long struggled to get traction among policy-makers, says Brooke. 'We just don't blame other diseases like we do with lung cancer,' he says. 'When we started to talk about the prioritisation of lung cancer screening, others said that ovarian cancer was more worthy.' The change came when advocates started taking a leaf from campaigns run by HIV-AIDS organisations in the '80s. 'A highly stigmatised community that had been pilloried for no reason,' says Brooke. 'We used that template.' Loading As with all screening programs, overdiagnosis remains a real risk. East Asian countries have heavily promoted lung cancer screening over the past few decades. In response, many non-smokers – particularly women – presented for screening. The result: a dramatic increase in lung surgeries, far above the actual rate of cancer detected. Screening often catches slow-growing cancers that probably aren't life-threatening; about 9 per cent of cancers spotted in one pivotal trial are considered 'overdiagnosed'. This problem is exacerbated if you screen a low-risk population – such as non-smoking women. 'Even before a diagnosis of lung cancer was made, the clinicians in those countries are just going ahead with [surgery]. And then not even finding any cancer,' says Professor Katy Bell, an expert in overdiagnosis based at the University of Sydney. 'There is definitely potential for harm.' Australia's program was designed with this in mind. That's why it targets only smokers. The economics of lung cancer screening are also tricky; early estimates suggested it simply wasn't cost-effective. People who smoke are at higher risk of a range of diseases, not just lung cancer. Does catching cancer really change their life-expectancy? It's not clear from the data we have. But health economists estimate for every $60,000 spent on the program, one Australian will enjoy an extra year of disease-free life – just within the cost-threshold the government is typically willing to pay. Amy*, 27, is a smoker who 'comes from a family of smokers', some of whom have developed lung cancer. 'It's a growing, lingering fear in the back of my head,' she says. Loading She's delighted about the introduction of a screening program. 'I can understand where the stigma comes from. On the surface level, it is our choice to smoke,' she says. 'It's something I'm very aware of and working towards – I've tried quitting multiple times. But we're all imperfect people, doing imperfect things.'
Sky News AU
6 days ago
- Sky News AU
Aussie mum viciously branded a 'monster' by trolls for lasering birthmark on her baby's face reveals what her son, 3, looks like now
An Aussie mum who was branded a "monster" for lasering a large birthmark on her baby boy's face has revealed what the three-year-old looks like now. Brooke Atkins, 36, in 2022 welcomed her second child Kinglsey, who was born with a large port-wine stain (PWS) covering the right side of his face. PWS is a permanent birthmark which takes on a reddish or blueish colour and is caused by the malfunction of blood vessels in the skin. If it is located around the eyes and forehead, the staining can cause underlying conditions like epilepsy or eye problems such as glaucoma. In Kingsley's case, he has glaucoma as well as Sturge Weber Syndrome, another hallmark of the birthmark, which sees him suffer from seizures. Brooke, from the Gold Coast, Queensland, used six laser treatments over two years to treat Kingsley's PWS despite criticism from online trolls. Ignoring those who called her "brainwashed" and claimed the move was more for her than her son, Brooke has recently taken to social media to show Kingsley's PWS is barely visible now after the light beam therapy. The now three-year-old can be seen with a very dilated purple undertone to the right side of his face, a far cry from the intense violet shade it was. In TikTok footage, Kinglsey smiled and giggled with his older sister Amarni as the siblings played at home, and he appeared happy after the treatment. Those who had not been following Brooke and Kingsley's journey with treating his PWS would arguably never suspect he was born with it. However the mum-of-two still remembers the vicious trolling she received from strangers when she decided with her partner, Kewene Wallace, 30, to laser their son's birthmark six months after he was born. "That birthmark is barely visible, what you're doing to him is horrible," one person wrote, among many other people who supported the decision. Another person accused Brooke of making her son "insecure the second he gets out of the womb". Brooke addressed the reception she received and said when she first started reading the negative comments, she cried for a good half hour. "I had a whole heap of mum guilt, and it made me question my decision," the mum of two said. "Even though I knew I was doing the right thing, the cruel words still played in my head. "I just wish these people had known about the health issues connected to these types of birthmarks before writing these things. "This wasn't for cosmetic reasons, and as parents, this was the hardest decision we have had to make. Brooke still has a long road ahead after the many treatments Kingsley has undergone in his life, including three eye surgeries for glaucoma, as well as having had more than 100 seizures, which he still suffers from. Nevertheless, circumstances took a positive turn in July when Brooke said Kingsley was "doing really well" after recovering from "a few sicknesses".
