Articles (Lung Cancer Fact)

Articles (Lung Cancer Fact) http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com Articles RSS Feed from Lung Cancer Fact en-us All Rights Reserved. © Copyright IBCTV 2008 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:38:53 CST Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:38:53 CST Lung Cancer Fact ArticlesLindsey Kuperlkuper@ibctv.com U.S. Cancer Deaths Drop Slightly http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=22 Lung Cancer Fact U.S. Cancer Deaths Drop Slightly 00:00 U.S. Cancer Deaths Drop Slightly Source: <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/02/09/hscout530921.html">Forbes</a> The number of cancer deaths in the United States dropped slightly in 2003, the first such decline since 1930. "It's an important milestone that the number of Americans dying from cancer is decreasing," said Dr. Michael Thun, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society. "We are making progress, and we have a very long way to go." The estimates appear in a report released Thursday called Cancer Facts & Figures, which has been published annually by the American Cancer Society since 1952. The report projects that 564,830 Americans will die of cancer this year, or more than 1,500 people each day. And about 1.4 million Americans will be diagnosed with the disease. Cancer is second only to heart disease as the most common killer in the United States. The death rate, as opposed to number of deaths, has been declining in the United States since 1991. But, until 2003, the aging and growth of the population conspired to increase the actual number of deaths. Now, the numbers are actually dropping. The report found that from 2002 to 2003 the number of U.S. cancer deaths fell by 369 -- from 557,271 in 2002 to 556,902 the following year. There are a number of explanations for the good news, including lifestyle changes, earlier detection and advances in treatment. "Quitting smoking has been tremendous in men and is slowly beginning to be seen in women," said Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at the Ochsner Clinic Foundation in Baton Rouge, La. "Screening for breast cancer has made a dramatic difference in death rates. Detection at much earlier stages is also important. Treatment for those already diagnosed has begun to make a major impact," he added. "It's a combination of things," Thun said. "For tobacco-related cancers, it's due to a reduction in tobacco use. For breast cancer, it's a combination of early detection and improvement in treatment. For prostate cancer, we don't have a definitive answer but it's also likely to be a combination. And for colon cancer, the one important factor is an increase in screening." Some other highlights from the report: *Cancer survivors are living longer. The five-year relative survival rate for all cancers diagnosed between 1995 and 2001 is 65 percent, up from 50 percent for the period 1974 to 1976. *Both incidence and death rates from lung cancer continue to decline in men. In women, the incidence rate has stabilized but death rates continue to climb. Lung cancer is the leading cancer killer in the United States, with 162,460 deaths -- and 174,470 new cases -- expected in 2006. *Kentucky has the highest lung cancer death rate with expected deaths in 2006 projected at 3,500. *After skin cancer, breast cancer is still the most common cancer among women. Some 212,920 new cases will be diagnosed in 2006, and 40,970 women will die of the disease. The death rate has declined by an average of 2.3 percent each year from 1990 to 2002. *Prostate cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in men -- after skin cancer -- with 27,350 deaths and 234,460 new cases expected in 2006. Death rates have been declining but remain more than twice as high in African-American men than in white men. *Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in men and women. An estimated 55,170 deaths are expected to occur in 2006. Overall mortality rates have declined at an average of 1.8 percent a year over the past two decades. *An estimated 20,180 new cases of ovarian cancer are expected in 2006, along with 15,310 deaths. *More than 1,000,000 Americans are diagnosed with basal cell or squamous cell skin cancer each year, most of which are curable. About 62,190 people will be diagnosed with the more severe type of skin cancer, melanoma, in 2006. Overall, 2006 will see 10,710 skin cancer deaths, 7,910 of them from melanoma. *Although still rare, cancer is the second-leading cause of death among children. An estimated 1,560 children, from newborns to 14 years of age, are expected to die of cancer in 2006, one-third of them from leukemia. Since 1975, childhood cancer death rates have declined by about 48 percent. The five-year survival rate increased from less than 50 percent before 1970 to nearly 80 percent in the late 1990s. In addition, this year's report includes a special section on environmental pollutants, particularly air pollutants, including asbestos, radon, secondhand tobacco smoke, vehicle emissions and more. Exposure to environmental pollutants in occupational, community and other settings is responsible for an estimated 4 percent of cancer deaths (occupational exposures) and 2 percent of deaths (environmental pollutants). That six percent translates into 33,900 U.S. deaths annually, according to the report. http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=22 Lung Cancer Fact The Kennedy Statement on Asbestos Legislation http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=21 Lung Cancer Fact The Kennedy Statement on Asbestos Legislation 00:00 The Kennedy Statement on Asbestos Legislation By Congressional Desk The real crisis which confronts us is not an "asbestos litigation crisis," it is an asbestos-induced disease crisis. Asbestos is the most lethal substance ever widely used in the workplace. Between 1940 and 1980, there were 27.5 million workers in this country who were exposed to asbestos on the job, and nearly 19 million of them had high levels of exposure over long periods of time. That exposure changed many of their lives. Each year, more than 10,000 of them die from lung cancer and other diseases caused by asbestos. Each year, hundreds of thousands of them suffer from lung conditions which make breathing so difficult that they cannot function at all. Even more have become unemployable due to their medical condition. And, because of the long latency period of these diseases, all of them live with fear of a premature death due to asbestos-induced disease. These are the real victims. They deserve to be the first and foremost focus of our concern. All too often, the tragedy these workers and their families are enduring becomes lost in a complex debate about the economic impact of asbestos litigation. We cannot allow that to happen. The litigation did not create these costs. Exposure to asbestos created them. They are the costs of medical care, the lost wages of incapacitated workers, and the cost of providing for the families of workers who died years before their time. Those costs are real. No legislative proposal can make them disappear. All legislation can do is shift those costs from one party to another. Any proposal which would shift more of the financial burden onto the backs of injured workers is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to every one of us. I have consistently said throughout the long debate on asbestos legislation that I would support a properly designed and adequately funded Trust Fund bill. That legislation would have to fairly compensate all the victims of asbestos-induced disease in a timely way. It would put more money in the pockets of these injured workers than the current system by reducing transaction costs. This is not such a bill. Senators Specter and Leahy have devoted an enormous amount of time and effort to this Asbestos Trust Fund legislation. They deserve great credit for their work. But, the bill before us contains fundamental flaws, which make it both unfair and unworkable. It does not provide a reliable guarantee of just compensation to the enormous number of workers who are suffering from asbestos-induced disease. The argument that there are serious inadequacies in the way asbestos cases are adjudicated today does not mean that any legislation is better than the current system. Our first obligation is to do no harm. We should not be supporting legislation that excludes many seriously ill victims from receiving compensation and that fails to provide a guarantee of adequate funding to make sure injured workers will actually receive what the bill promises them. This bill will do harm. The problem is that powerful corporate interests responsible for the asbestos epidemic have fought throughout this process to escape full accountability for the harm they have inflicted. As a result, the focus has shifted from what these companies should pay victims to what they are willing to pay them. That is preventing the Senate from enacting Trust Fund legislation that will truly help the workers who have been seriously injured by this industrial plague. The Senate should not be proceeding to this asbestos bill at this time. Despite all the work that Senators Specter, Leahy and other supporters have done, S.852 is simply not ready for floor consideration. There are too many unanswered questions, and the numbers just do not add up. This legislation does not provide sufficient funding to keep the promises of compensation it makes to those asbestos victims that it purports to cover. Even if the entire $140 billion that the sponsors anticipate raising is paid to the Fund, it will not be sufficient to fully compensate the projected number of eligible victims. And, it is extremely unlikely that the full amount will ever be paid. The formula in the bill is based on highly questionable estimates of the number of companies that would be required to contribute and how much each one would pay, contained in a secret list known only to the Asbestos Study Group, the key lobbyists for the bill. None of the relevant information has ever been made public. There is reason to believe far fewer companies would be contributing than the ASG projects. There will also be serious court challenges brought against the new law that are certain to at least significantly delay statutorily mandated payments, and could well result in the loss of substantial anticipated revenue. Because of these problems, seriously ill victims are likely to wait for years in a legal limbo - unable to proceed in court and unable to obtain compensation from the Trust Fund - if this bill passes. The legislation also fails to permit victims to quickly return to the court system should the Trust Fund become insolvent. Victims are the losers at both ends. These problems are far too complex to be fixed on the Senate floor with a few, last minute amendments. If they could not be resolved in the three years that many Senators have worked on this bill, they can not be corrected in a few days. S. 852 is the legislative version of the famous "Spruce Goose" - an ill-conceived plan too complex and cumbersome to ever get off the ground. As designed, it simply will not work. It is not a reliable vehicle for compensating the victims of asbestos disease. It should be sent back to the drawing board. The list of serious flaws in S.852 is, unfortunately, a long one. I will focus my remarks on several of the most egregious. Financial Inadequacy Experts tell us that the Asbestos Trust created by this legislation is seriously under-funded. The funding plan in this bill relies on very substantial borrowing in the early years as the only way to pay the flood of claims. The result will be huge debt service costs over the life of the Trust that could reduce the $140 billion intended to pay claims by as much as $30 to $40 billion. The amount remaining would be far too little to pay claims to cover all of those who are entitled to compensation under the terms of the bill. In addition, there is a strong constitutional argument that the existing bankruptcy trusts cannot be forced to turn over all their assets, which will place $7.6 billion of the projected funding in jeopardy. Many companies are also likely to challenge their obligation to finance the Asbestos Trust. It is not at all clear how much will actually be available to pay eligible victims what the legislation promises they will receive. CBO's analysis of S. 852 raises serious concerns about the adequacy of funding. The report states: CBO expects that the value of valid claims likely to be submitted to the fund over the next 50 years could be between $120 and $150 billion, not including possible financing (debt services) costs and administrative expenses. The maximum actual revenues collected under the bill would be around $140 billion, but could be significantly less. Consequently, the fund may have sufficient resources to pay all asbestos claims over the next 50 years, but depending on claim rates, borrowing, and other factors, its resources may be insufficient to pay all such claims. There is likely to be a serious shortfall in the early years, when nearly 300,000 pending cases will be transferred to the Trust for payment. Studies show the Trust will not have the resources to pay those claims in a timely manner. Payments to critically ill people may be delayed for years. One way to reduce the enormous financial burden on the fund in the early years would be to leave many of those cases in the tort system, especially cases which were close to resolution. That would be fair to the parties in those cases and it would greatly improve the financial viability of the fund. Unfortunately, that proposal has been repeatedly rejected by the sponsors of the bill. As a result, there will be a serious mismatch between the number of claims the Trust Fund will face when its doors open and the payments coming into the Fund. That will force major borrowing in the first five years. The debt service resulting from that borrowing will financially cripple the Trust. In its report, CBO recognizes the seriousness of this debt-service problem, explaining: Because expenses would exceed revenues in many of the early years of the fund's operations, the Administrator would need to borrow funds to make up the shortfall. The interest cost of this borrowing would add significantly to the long-term costs faced by the fund and contributes to the possibility that the fund might become insolvent. This is only one of several major financing problems with S.852 that experts have identified. There are also major questions about the projections of pending and future claims that further cloud the Trust Fund's financial viability. For example, there has been a significant increase in the number of Mesothelioma cases in recent years. The only known cause of Mesothelioma is asbestos exposure. This new information suggests that the CBO cost estimate may understate the cost of the Mesothelioma claims that the Trust Fund will incur more than $15 billion. This is by no means the only instance where there is strong evidence to suggest that the number of eligible claimants will substantially exceed CBO estimates. If S. 852 is enacted, the United States Government will be making a commitment to compensate hundreds of thousands of seriously ill asbestos victims, but will not have ensured that adequate dollars are available to honor its commitment. That will precipitate a genuine asbestos crisis, and this Congress will bear the responsibility for it. Start Up The legislation before us would close the courthouse doors to asbestos victims on the day it passes, long before the Trust Fund will be able to pay their claims. Their cases will be stayed immediately. Seriously ill workers will be forced into a legal limbo for up to two years. Their need for compensation to cover medical expenses and basic family necessities will remain, but they will have nowhere to turn for relief. Under the legislation, even exigent health claims currently pending in the courts will be automatically stayed for nine months as of the date of enactment. An exigent health claim is one in which the victim has been diagnosed "as being terminally ill from an asbestos-related illness and having a life expectancy of less than one year." By definition, these cases all involve people who have less than a year to live due to Mesothelioma or some other disease caused by asbestos exposure. Their cases would all be stayed for nine months. Nine months is an eternity for someone with less than a year to live. Many of them will die without receiving either their day in court or compensation from the Trust Fund. The stay language is written so broadly that it would even stop all forward movement of a case in the court system. A trial about to begin would be halted. An appellate ruling about to be issued would be barred. Even the deposition of a dying witness could not be taken to preserve his testimony. The stay would deprive victims of their last chance at justice. I cannot believe that the authors of this bill intended such a harsh result, but that is what the legislation does. The bill does contain language allowing an "offer of judgment" to be made during the period of the stay in the hope of producing a settlement. However, this provision is unlikely to resolve many cases because it requires the agreement of the defendants. There is no incentive for defendants to agree to a settlement when the case has been stayed. Those who have tried cases know that it is only the imminence of judicial action which produces a settlement in most cases. Delay is the defendant's best ally; and under this bill, the case is at least delayed for nine months and may never be allowed to resume if the Fund becomes operational. If, however, these exigent cases were not stayed, and judicial proceedings could continue, there would be far more likelihood of cases settling under the offer of judgment process. I strongly believe that, at a minimum, all exigent cases should be exempted from the automatic stay in the legislation. Victims with less than a year to live certainly should be allowed to continue their cases in court uninterrupted until the Trust Fund became operational. Their ability to recover compensation in the court should not be halted until the Trust Fund is operational and they are able to receive compensation from that Fund. It is grossly unfair to leave these dying victims in a legal limbo. For them, the old adage is especially true - justice delayed is justice denied. Under the legislation, defendants would receive a credit against what they must contribute to the Trust Fund for whatever payments they make to these dying victims; so they would not be "paying twice," as some have claimed. Allowing the exigent cases to go forward in the courts without interruption is a matter of simple fairness. Staying the cases of victims who have less than a year to live is bureaucratic insensitivity at its worst. Most of these victims will not live to see the doors of the Trust Fund open. We should not deprive them of their last chance - their only chance - to receive some measure of justice before asbestos-induced disease silences them. They should be allowed to receive compensation in their final months to ease their suffering. They should be allowed to die knowing that their families are financially provided for. S.852 in its current form takes that last chance away from them. Sunset The way the legislation is written, victims will lose out at the back end of the process as well, should the Trust Fund run out of money after several years of operation. If the Trust Fund does become insolvent, a very real possibility, workers will not have an automatic right to immediately return to the court system. The process outlined in the current bill could take years. Workers could end up trapped in the Trust with reduced benefits and long delays in receiving their payments. There needs to be a clear, objective trigger - inability of the Trust to pay a certain percentage of claims within a set period of time - that will automatically allow victims to pursue their claims in court if the Trust runs out of money. The Judiciary Committee's 2003 legislation contained such a provision, but this bill does not. We cannot allow seriously injured workers with valid claims who are not paid in a timely manner by the Trust to be denied their day in court. That would be a shameful injustice. The Asbestos Trust is being presented as an alternative source of compensation for victims suffering from asbestos-induced disease. If that alternative runs out of money and can no longer compensate those victims in a full and timely manner, their right to seek compensation through the judicial system should be immediately restored with no strings attached. No principle is more basic. Yet, this bill violates that principle. Lung Cancer Victims I am particularly upset by the way lung cancer victims are treated in this bill. Under the medical criteria adopted by the Judiciary Committee overwhelmingly two years ago, all lung cancer victims who had at least 15 years of weighted exposure to asbestos were eligible to receive compensation from the Fund. However, that was changed in S.852. Under this bill, lung cancer victims who have had very substantial exposure to asbestos over long periods of time are denied any compensation unless they can show asbestos scarring on their lungs. The Committee heard expert medical testimony that prolonged asbestos exposure dramatically increases the probability that a person will get lung cancer even if they do not have scarring on their lungs. Deleting this category will deny compensation to more than forty thousand victims suffering with asbestos-related lung cancers. Under the legislation as now drafted, these victims are losing their right to go to court, but receiving nothing from the Fund. How can any of us support such an unconscionable provision? Since we began considering asbestos legislation, no aspect has concerned me more than the treatment of lung cancer victims. My top priority has been to make sure that these severely ill workers receive just and fair compensation. And I have not been alone. A number of other members have spoken out about the importance of adequately providing for lung cancer victims who have been exposed to substantial amounts of asbestos over long periods of time. Now we find that these victims, many of whom will have their lives cut short because of asbestos-induced disease, will not receive one penny in compensation from the Trust Fund. They are losing their right to go to court, but being denied any right to compensation under the Fund. They are, in essence, being told to suffer in a legally imposed silence with no recourse whatsoever. One of the arguments we hear most frequently in favor of creating an Asbestos Trust Fund is that in the current system, too much money goes to people who are not really sick and too little goes to those who are seriously ill. Well, lung cancer victims who have years of exposure to asbestos are the ones who are seriously ill. They are the ones this legislation is supposed to be helping. Yet, they are being completely excluded. The Committee heard extensive testimony from distinguished medical experts - Dr. Laura Welsh and Dr. Philip Landrigin - that prolonged exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer even if the victim does not also have markers of nonmalignant asbestos disease. They cited numerous medical authorities supporting their position. They even described treating lung cancer victims whose disease was clearly caused by asbestos but who had neither pleural thickening nor asbestosis. In a situation where people are undeniably severely ill and undeniably had 15 or more years of weighted exposure to asbestos, it is wrong to completely exclude them from compensation under the Trust Fund. Some of the proponents of S.852 have attempted to justify excluding them by claiming that smoking probably caused their lung cancers. But, the evidence refutes this contention. First, even those lung cancer victims with 15 or more weighted years of exposure to asbestos who had never smoked were removed from eligibility for compensation under the Trust Fund. So, this is about more than just the relationship between asbestos and smoking. Second, regarding the smoking issue, Dr. Landrigan testified that smokers who have substantial exposure to asbestos have 55 times the background risk of developing lung cancer, while smokers who were not exposed to asbestos have 10 times the background risk of developing lung cancer. Clearly, the asbestos exposure makes a huge difference. There is a powerful synergistic effect between asbestos and tobacco in the causation of lung cancer. Both are substantial contributing factors to the disease. The smoker with substantial asbestos exposure should receive less compensation from the Trust Fund than the nonsmoker with lung cancer. That principle appears throughout the bill. But smoking is not a reason to exclude the smoker from all compensation. Asbestos and tobacco are analogous to joint tortfeasors. Each is partly responsible and each should pay a proportionate share of the compensation. Without prolonged exposure to asbestos, the smoker would have been far less likely to contract lung cancer. It is a gross injustice to completely exclude these severely ill workers. Standard of Proof This bill also tampers with the agreed-upon medical criteria carefully negotiated between representatives of business and labor by raising the standard of proof for each disease category. The language in S.852 requires the workers to prove that asbestos was "a substantial contributing factor" to their disease, instead of just "a contributing factor." This is a major increase in the burden workers must overcome to receive compensation. It is significantly higher than most states currently require in a court of law. Rather than having to show that asbestos exposure contributed to their illness, they will now have to address the relative impact of asbestos and other potential factors. This change is a serious step in the wrong direction, raising the bar even higher on injured workers. Community Contamination Another major shortcoming of this legislation is its failure to compensate the residents of areas that have experienced large-scale asbestos contamination. S.852 simply pretends that this problem does not exist. It fails to compensate the victims of all asbestos-induced diseases, other than Mesothelioma, whose exposure was not directly tied to their work. There is very substantial scientific evidence showing that the men, women and children who lived in the vicinity of asbestos-contaminated sites, such mining operations and processing plants, can and do contract asbestos-induced disease. The reason that this legislation needs a special provision to compensate the residents of Libby, Montana, is because it does not compensate victims of community contamination generally. The residents of Libby are certainly entitled to compensation, but so are the residents who lived near the many processing plants from Massachusetts to California that received the lethal ore from the Libby mine. The deadly dust from Libby, Montana was spread across America. W.R. Grace shipped almost 10 billion pounds of Libby ore to its processing facilities between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. One of the places it was shipped was to the Town of Easthampton, Massachusetts, where the operations of an expanding plant spread the asbestos to the surrounding environment, into the air and onto the soil. I intend to discuss this problem in great detail as the debate moves forward. I raise it now as a dramatic example of one of the major injustices caused by the arbitrary exclusion of a large number of asbestos victims from compensation under the Trust Fund. Nor is the problem of community contamination limited to the sites receiving ore from Libby. Community asbestos contamination can result from many different sources. For example, medical experts believe it may result from exposure to asbestos after the collapse of the World Trade Center. Because of the long latency period, we often do not learn about community asbestos contamination until long after it occurs. Certainly these victims of asbestos are entitled to fair treatment as well. They should not be arbitrarily excluded from compensation as if their suffering is somehow less worthy of recognition than the suffering of other asbestos victims. Yet, that is what S.852 does. This is a bill that shifts more of the financial burden of asbestos-induced disease to injured workers by unfairly and arbitrarily limiting the liability of defendants. It does not establish a fair and reliable system that will compensate all those who are seriously ill due to asbestos. It lacks a dependable funding stream which can ensure that all who are entitled to compensation actually receive full and timely payment. These are very basic shortcomings. We cannot allow what justice requires to be limited by what the wrongdoers are willing to pay. I intend to vote "no" and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Courtesy: <a href="http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5543">American Chronicle</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=21 Lung Cancer Fact Houston Area Lung Cancer Rates Higher Than Average http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=19 Lung Cancer Fact Houston Area Lung Cancer Rates Higher Than Average 00:00 Houston Area Lung Cancer Rates Higher Than Average Courtesy: Houston Chronicle When 68-year-old Lucie Wood tells someone that she is battling lung cancer, she is irritated that most automatically assume she is a smoker. Terri Diaz, who contracted lung cancer three years ago at 41, also has grown tired of her illness being stigmatized as a "smoker's disease." Both Houston-area women say they never puffed a single cigarette, and neither has any family history of the disease. Yet each woman fits into a complex puzzle of cancer data that the Texas Department of State Health Services' Texas Cancer Registry has been studying for the past 10 years. Each year the database has grown until now epidemiological studies can include 10 years of cancer deaths and eight years of cancer cases. From September 2001 to the present, the registry has conducted 51 studies in the Houston area, and 18 of those, or 35 percent, identified ZIP codes with cancer rates higher than should be expected when compared with statewide rates. Of all the types of cancer, lung cancer was by far the most frequently found to be elevated. The registry detected higher rates of lung cancer in 24 ZIP codes -- or 77 percent of all the ZIP codes with elevated levels. Neil Carman, clean-air director for the environmental group Sierra Club, said he is surprised the test results had not been publicized before the Houston Chronicle analyzed cancer patterns turning up in these reports. And for the first time, a pilot study is being initiated to try to link the registry's epidemiological data with possible environmental exposures. "I've talked to citizens in Houston, and they have been wanting more research in light of all the air pollution in the Houston area," Carman said. "In the past, there seems to have been a history of ignoring these issues." But the Texas Cancer Registry is not designed to conduct in-depth research of those issues, officials said. The registry simply responds to requests about mortality and incidence of cancer in a specific ZIP code. "Our studies are meant as a starting point, a very first step that might stimulate more study," said Melanie Williams, a senior epidemiologist with the Texas Cancer Registry. "I've noticed higher patterns of lung cancer in these studies. But we don't know what that's all about. That's why I'm in support of looking deeper into what might be behind it." In the new pilot study, Williams is turning her data over to the University of Texas School of Public Health, which has been contracted to do the research by the city of Houston's Department of Health and Human Services. The study will look at the Houston Ship Channel and six surrounding counties to see whether it is feasible to link elevated cancer rates, such as lung cancer, with hazardous pollutants. "The objective will be to correlate specific air-toxic data from the state with relevant cancers in the Houston area and compare it to Dallas (another large metropolitan area)," said Ann Coker, the principal investigator, an associate professor of epidemiology at the UT School of Public Health. No data on smoking Unfortunately, the registry has not collected any data on smoking -- a key risk factor -- that the American Cancer Society estimates could account for as much as 87 percent of all lung cancer. "Physicians can list smoking as an underlying cause in their death reports," Coker said, but the required reporting fields include nothing to "check off" whether an individual was a smoker. To compensate, Coker said, she might conduct a survey to try to estimate the percentage of people in the area who smoke. Meanwhile, Wood and Diaz can't help but wonder whether the environment played a factor in their illnesses. Wood has lived most of her life in the Houston area, including four years in La Porte, an area that the cancer registry reported had an elevated lung cancer rate in the 77571 ZIP code. The registry's 2001 report found the incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer for women were 70 percent higher than the state average. No studies have been done on the ZIP codes in Cypress or Dairy Ashford areas where Diaz has made her home since age 5. She was unaware that the cancer registry collects such data, but she wonders what a study would find in her neighborhood. A ZIP code is studied only if an individual or government agency requests it, and none has been made for her area. "I can't help but think the environment must have had a lot to do with it," said Diaz, who is almost at the end of her treatment options. Pollution can be a risk factor for lung cancer, but so can radon, asbestos, auto exhaust and family history -- making it difficult to prove a connection to industrial releases, experts say. "Still, it makes sense that something in the air might increase the risk of lung cancer because our lungs are just big filters," Coker said. To identify a strong cancer cluster, the registry would usually like to see more than 10 times the expected rate of cancer in an area, Williams said. However, contaminants in a neighborhood will not usually be as concentrated as at a workplace, so cancer elevations in neighborhoods may be much lower, Coker said. Galveston ZIP codes 77550 and 77551 registered the lowest level of increase in lung cancer of all the elevated areas studied by the registry. The Oct. 31, 2005, study found 21 percent, or .21 times, more males with lung cancer than would usually be expected. Data identified 223 cases of lung cancer, whereas 184 would be expected. The highest lung cancer elevation was detected Sept. 30, 2005, in the Liverpool area of Brazoria County (ZIP code 77577). Both incidence and mortality rates were more than four times what would be expected in females. For instance, fewer than two lung cancer cases should have been found in this low-populated rural area, but nine were counted. The registry adjusts its data in an attempt to eliminate the possibility that a higher rate might occur by chance alone, such as when small numbers are involved, authorities said. Adjustments also are made for age, race and ethnicity because older or minority populations can have higher cancer rates. The data, however, do not track mobility such as whether someone contracted the cancer prior to living in that ZIP code. Because of numerous requests, the 77530 ZIP code in Channelview has been studied more than any other ZIP code. Three separate studies there documented elevated levels of lung cancer. Higher than normal The latest study done there, on April 8, 2004, found the frequency of males both contracting and dying from this disease was 50 percent higher than would be expected. But two earlier studies, both in 2001, detected even higher elevations of lung cancer incidence (70 percent to 90 percent more) and deaths (70 percent to 200 percent more) in males. No elevations above the state average were detected for females with lung cancer in the latest 2004 study, but both studies in 2001 found 200 percent more lung cancer deaths and 80 percent to 90 percent more lung cancer cases in women than would be expected. All three studies used 10 years of cancer deaths, but the 2004 study used six years of cancer cases while the 2001 studies used three. Lung cancer elevations also were detected in multiple ZIP codes in Pasadena (77502, 77503, 77506) and Houston (77049, 77015, 77017, 77044). In the new pilot study, Coker is refining the data to look at the entire Houston region by individual addresses rather than using the broad brush of a ZIP code. She will put this data on a map that also defines areas of high and medium exposures to pollutants. She also will factor in prevailing wind patterns and latency periods, the lag time from when someone may be exposed and then develop cancer. This 10-month study, being funded by a $27,000 grant, will determine whether more resources should be devoted to researching possible connections to environmental exposures, she said. But proving any link will be difficult, authorities agree. "Nobody is sure of the impact of the cumulative effects in the environment of a chemical soup in low concentrations," said Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Cigarette smoking and asbestos can lead to higher cancer rates, but what about cigarette smoking and chemicals? The bottom line is that we don't know." At the same time, Dr. Roy Herbst, who handles lung cancer patients at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, said most people don't realize that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in men and women. He said the illness is often seen as a death sentence. "Of those who contract the disease, only 15 percent have a five-year survival rate. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of patients," Herbst said. "The best thing to do is to prevent it from happening." Wood and Diaz say they don't want people telling them to just stop smoking because they never smoked. They are hoping new research will come up with some better answers. By CINDY HORSWELL Copyright 2006 <a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/printstory.mpl/metropolitan/3635700">Houston Chronicle</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=19 Lung Cancer Fact Mesothelioma Treatment 101 http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=20 Lung Cancer Fact Mesothelioma Treatment 101 00:00 Mesothelioma Treatment 101 Source: JuiceeNewsDaily Treatment of MM using conventional therapies has not proved successful and patients have a median survival time of 6 - 12 months after presentation. The clinical behaviour of the malignancy is affected by several factors including the continuous mesothelial surface of the pleural cavity which favours local metastasis via exfoliated cells, invasion to underlying tissue and other organs within the pleural cavity, and the extremely long latency period between asbestos exposure and development of the disease. Surgery: Surgery, either by itself or used in combination with pre- and post-operative adjuvant therapies has proved disappointing with a 5 year survival rate of less than 10%. Radiation: Although the tumour is highly resistant to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, these regimens are sometimes used to relieve symptoms arising from tumour metastases such as obstruction of a major blood vessel. Chemotherapy: In February 2004, the Food and Drug Administration approved pemetrexed (brand name Alimta) for treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Immunotherapy: Treatment regimens involving immunotherapy have yielded variable results. For example, intrapleural inoculation of Bacillus Calmette-Gu�rin (BCG) in an attempt to boost the immune response, was found to be of no benefit to the patient (while it may benefit patients with bladder cancer). Mesothelioma cells proved susceptible to in vitro lysis by LAK cells following activation by interleukin-2 (IL-2), but patients undergoing this particular therapy experienced major side effects. Indeed, this trial was suspended in view of the unacceptably high levels of IL-2 toxicity and the severity of side effects such as fever and cachexia. Nonetheless, other trials involving interferon alpha have proved more encouraging with 20% of patients experiencing a greater than 50% reduction in tumour mass combined with minimal side effects. Heated Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A procedure known as heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy was developed by Paul Sugarbaker at the Washington Cancer Institute. The surgeon removes as much of the tumor as possible followed by the direct administration of a chemotherapy agent, heated to between 40 and 48�C, in the abdomen. The fluid is perfused for 60 to 120 minutes and then drained. This technique permits the administration of high concentrations of selected drugs into the abdominal and pelvic surfaces. Heating the chemotherapy treatment can increases the penetration of the drugs into tissues, but it also has by itself an anti-tumor effect since the damage produced by heat is greater to cancerous cells than to normal cells. Research: Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in clinical trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma. Legal issues: In the United States, the average mesothelioma-related settlement was $1 million; for cases that go to trial awards averaged $6 million, according to a study by the RAND Corporation. Only a small fraction of the thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits in the United States every year are related to mesothelioma. In 2004, a bill in the United States Senate aimed a asbestos litigation reform failed to reach a floor vote. In January of 2005, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter announced he would again try to pass an asbestos litigation reform bill. A separate bill introduced on March 17, 2005, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 (FAIR act of 2005), seeks to ensure a set amount of compensation dependent on the symptoms of the victim. The range is from Medical Monitoring for victims with Asbestosis or Pleural Disease to $35,000 for victims with Mixed Disease With Impairment all the way to over $1,000,000 for Mesothelioma victims and nonsmoking Lung Cancer victims. <a href="http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.1360:">FAIR act of 2005, full text</a> History: An article published by Wagner et al in 1960 first established mesothelioma as a disease arising from exposure to crocidolite asbestos. The article referred to over 30 case studies of people who had suffered from mesothelioma in South Africa. Some exposures were transient and some were mine workers. In 1962 Dr McNulty reported the first diagnosed case of malignant mesothelioma in an Australian asbestos worker. The worker had worked in the mill at the asbestos mine in Wittenoom from 1948 to 1950. In the town of Wittenoom, asbestos-containing mine waste was used to cover schoolyards and playgrounds. In 1965 an article in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine established that people who lived in the neighbourhoods of asbestos factories and mines, but did not work in them, had contracted mesothelioma. Despite proof that the dust associated with asbestos mining and milling causes asbestos related disease, mining began at Wittenoom in 1943 and continued until 1966. It is difficult to understand why the mine and mill was allowed to initially open and operate without adequate risk control measures; and why nothing was done to force the owner (CSR) to clean them up, adopt safer work practices or close down their operations. In 1974 the first public warnings of the dangers of blue asbestos were published in a cover story called "Is this Killer in Your Home?" in Australia's Bulletin magazine. In 1978 the Western Australian Government decided to phase out the town of Wittenoom, following the publication of a Health Dept. booklet, "The Health Hazard at Wittenoom", containing the results of air sampling and an appraisal of worldwide medical information. By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims. <a href="http://onlyidol.com/index.php/2006/01/26/mesothelioma-treatment-101/">Juiceenewsdaily</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesothelioma">Wikipedia</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=20 Lung Cancer Fact James Hardie to Sign Asbestos Compensation Deal http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=17 Lung Cancer Fact James Hardie to Sign Asbestos Compensation Deal 00:00 James Hardie to Sign Asbestos Compensation Deal Source: Bloomberg Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- James Hardie Industries NV, Australia's fourth-largest building materials maker, will today sign a A$1.6 billion ($1.2 billion, US) deal to compensate people sickened by asbestos contained in its products. The deal, approved by the Sydney-based company's board today, comprises an initial A$154 million payment to a compensation fund and annual contributions capped at 35 percent of cash flow for at least 40 years, James Hardie said in a statement. Final implementation of the agreement still depends on James Hardie getting tax breaks on the compensation payments and winning approval from lenders and shareholders. The stock rose as the deal signaled an end to a bitter two-year fight with victims and unions after revelations the company had underfunded a compensation trust. "The strident rhetoric over the last couple of weeks had created a climate of uncertainty," said Warwick Cumming, head of equities research at Tyndall Investment Management Ltd. in Sydney. With today's deal, "they're closer to a resolution and knowing what the final outcome looks like." James Hardie shares rose 27 cents, or 3.2 percent, to A$8.68 at 12:34 p.m. in Sydney today. The stock has risen 31 percent this year. The stock has surged 73 percent since August 2004, when the company said the fallout from a New South Wales government inquiry into its asbestos compensation had led to boycotts of its building products. James Hardie is the biggest seller of home sidings in the U.S., where it gets 80 percent of its profit. Outstanding Issues New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma forced a resolution this week when on Nov. 28 he gave James Hardie a 24-hour deadline to strike a deal or face legislation forcing the company to meet its obligations. Still, James Hardie Chairwoman Meredith Hellicar said there were some outstanding issues to be resolved, such as the tax treatment of payments to the compensation fund. ``Today is not the end of the process,'' she said. The value of outstanding asbestos claims was estimated to be A$1.57 billion as of June 30, according to KPMG Actuaries Ltd. James Hardie incorporated in the Netherlands in 2001, after transferring its asbestos liabilities to the Medical Research and Compensation Fund. It retained its corporate headquarters in Sydney. The New South Wales inquiry found the fund, set up in 2001 with assets of A$293 million, would run out of money within three years. The probe led to the resignation of Peter Macdonald as chief executive in October 2004, after the inquiry found he had misled investors. Chief Financial Officer Peter Shafron also quit. James Hardie started using asbestos in Australia in the 1920s. It began to phase out blue asbestos in 1968, and all products were asbestos-free by 1986. The fibrous mineral has been linked to lung cancer and mesothelioma, a form of cancer affecting the chest or abdomen. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000081&sid=aZr8E9sPvPZ0&refer=australia#">Bloomberg article</a> To contact the reporter on this story: Miriam Steffens in Sydney at msteffens1@bloomberg.net http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=17 Lung Cancer Fact A Future Lost: One Family's Asbestos Nightmare http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=16 Lung Cancer Fact A Future Lost: One Family's Asbestos Nightmare 00:00 A Future Lost: One Family's Asbestos Nightmare A bill to set up an asbestos victim's trust fund is scheduled to come before Congress in early 2006. Radio news reporter Meghan Daum talked with one family for whom it's too little, too late. To hear the story click on the link below, then click "listen to this story" on that page. <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2005/11/25/PM200511257.html">Public Radio story, "A Future Lost"</a> Source: Marketplace http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=16 Lung Cancer Fact Mesothelioma Treatment 101 http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=15 Lung Cancer Fact Mesothelioma Treatment 101 00:00 Mesothelioma Treatment 101 Source: JuiceeNewsDaily.Com (JND) - Treatment of MM using conventional therapies has not proved successful and patients have a median survival time of 6 - 12 months after presentation. The clinical behaviour of the malignancy is affected by several factors including the continuous mesothelial surface of the pleural cavity which favours local metastasis via exfoliated cells, invasion to underlying tissue and other organs within the pleural cavity, and the extremely long latency period between asbestos exposure and development of the disease. Surgery: Surgery, either by itself or used in combination with pre- and post-operative adjuvant therapies has proved disappointing with a 5 year survival rate of less than 10%. Radiation: Although the tumour is highly resistant to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, these regimens are sometimes used to relieve symptoms arising from tumour metastases such as obstruction of a major blood vessel. Chemotherapy: In February 2004, the Food and Drug Administration approved pemetrexed (brand name Alimta) for treatment of malignant pleural mesothelioma. Immunotherapy: Treatment regimens involving immunotherapy have yielded variable results. For example, intrapleural inoculation of Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) in an attempt to boost the immune response, was found to be of no benefit to the patient (while it may benefit patients with bladder cancer). Mesothelioma cells proved susceptible to in vitro lysis by LAK cells following activation by interleukin-2 (IL-2), but patients undergoing this particular therapy experienced major side effects. Indeed, this trial was suspended in view of the unacceptably high levels of IL-2 toxicity and the severity of side effects such as fever and cachexia. Nonetheless, other trials involving interferon alpha have proved more encouraging with 20% of patients experiencing a greater than 50% reduction in tumour mass combined with minimal side effects. Heated Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A procedure known as heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy was developed by Paul Sugarbaker at the Washington Cancer Institute. The surgeon removes as much of the tumor as possible followed by the direct administration of a chemotherapy agent, heated to between 40 and 48°C, in the abdomen. The fluid is perfused for 60 to 120 minutes and then drained. This technique permits the administration of high concentrations of selected drugs into the abdominal and pelvic surfaces. Heating the chemotherapy treatment can increases the penetration of the drugs into tissues, but it also has by itself an anti-tumor effect since the damage produced by heat is greater to cancerous cells than to normal cells. Research: Because mesothelioma is very hard to control, the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) is sponsoring clinical trials that are designed to find new treatments and better ways to use current treatments. Before any new treatment can be recommended for general use, doctors conduct clinical trials to find out whether the treatment is safe for patients and effective against the disease. Participation in clinical trials is an important treatment option for many patients with mesothelioma. Legal issues: In the United States, the average mesothelioma-related settlement was $1 million; for cases that go to trial awards averaged $6 million, according to a study by the RAND Corporation. Only a small fraction of the thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits in the United States every year are related to mesothelioma. In 2004, a bill in the United States Senate aimed a asbestos litigation reform failed to reach a floor vote. In January of 2005, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter announced he would again try to pass an asbestos litigation reform bill. A separate bill introduced on March 17, 2005, the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act of 2005 (FAIR act of 2005), seeks to ensure a set amount of compensation dependent on the symptoms of the victim. The range is from Medical Monitoring for victims with Asbestosis or Pleural Disease to $35,000 for victims with Mixed Disease With Impairment all the way to over $1,000,000 for Mesothelioma victims and nonsmoking Lung Cancer victims. "FAIR act of 2005, full text". FAIR act of 2005, full text. URL accessed on April 13, 2005. History: An article published by Wagner et al in 1960 first established mesothelioma as a disease arising from exposure to crocidolite asbestos. The article referred to over 30 case studies of people who had suffered from mesothelioma in South Africa. Some exposures were transient and some were mine workers. In 1962 Dr McNulty reported the first diagnosed case of malignant mesothelioma in an Australian asbestos worker. The worker had worked in the mill at the asbestos mine in Wittenoom from 1948 to 1950. In the town of Wittenoom, asbestos-containing mine waste was used to cover schoolyards and playgrounds. In 1965 an article in the British Journal of Industrial Medicine established that people who lived in the neighbourhoods of asbestos factories and mines, but did not work in them, had contracted mesothelioma. Despite proof that the dust associated with asbestos mining and milling causes asbestos related disease, mining began at Wittenoom in 1943 and continued until 1966. It is difficult to understand why the mine and mill was allowed to initially open and operate without adequate risk control measures; and why nothing was done to force the owner (CSR) to clean them up, adopt safer work practices or close down their operations. In 1974 the first public warnings of the dangers of blue asbestos were published in a cover story called "Is this Killer in Your Home?" in Australia's Bulletin magazine. In 1978 the Western Australian Government decided to phase out the town of Wittenoom, following the publication of a Health Dept. booklet, "The Health Hazard at Wittenoom", containing the results of air sampling and an appraisal of worldwide medical information. By 1979 the first writs for negligence related to Wittenoom were issued against CSR and its subsidiary ABA, and the Asbestos Diseases Society was formed to represent the Wittenoom victims. <a href="http://www.juiceenewsdaily.com/1004/news/treat.html?1130263510281">JuiceeNewsDaily.Com Copyright © 2005</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=15 Lung Cancer Fact U.S. Senate: Asbestos Fund Top Priority for 2006 http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=12 Lung Cancer Fact U.S. Senate: Asbestos Fund Top Priority for 2006 00:00 U.S. Senate: Asbestos Fund Top Priority for 2006 Source: Bloomberg.com WASHINGTON -- A proposed $140 billion fund to pay current and future lung cancer claims for victims of asbestos exposure will be the U.S. Senate's top priority next year, Majority Leader Bill Frist said yesterday. "The Senate will finally resolve the asbestos litigation crisis," Frist, of Tennessee, said in a Senate floor speech. "The day has come for us to fix it." The Senate Judiciary Committee will conduct a hearing tomorrow to determine whether $140 billion is enough to cover all claims. A private study said the fund, to be financed by companies that made asbestos products and their insurers, would need $300 billion to pay current and future lung-cancer claims. The proposed fund would end litigation that has forced 77 companies, such as USG Corp., the world's largest wallboard maker, into bankruptcy. The measure would pay victims of diseases such as cancer up to $1.1 million if they can prove the cause was asbestos. In a letter to Frist and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the committee's ranking Democrat, questioned how much must be borrowed from the U.S. Treasury to start the compensation fund. In response, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's ranking Democrat, said the fund wouldn't impose any burden on taxpayers. The bill would ``explicitly absolve the federal government from any liability,'' they said in a letter to Frist and Reid. Small and medium-sized businesses that face asbestos claims "are willing to take their lumps in the business world as they know them now," Reid, of Nevada, said. "They obect to being told they have to contribute huge amounts of money to this fund." Senate Republicans are divided on the plan. Seven Republican members of the Judiciary Committee voiced serious reservations about the legislation after the panel approved the measure 13-5 on May 26. Republicans have questioned whether the criteria for determining reimbursements for some victims are too generous. The skeptics, including Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, said they were concerned that too many cases would be allowed to return to the court system if the fund fails to pay claims on time. <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aItERc8e2mrE&refer=us#">Bloomberg.com</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=12 Lung Cancer Fact New Cancer Test Uses Cheek Cells http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=11 Lung Cancer Fact New Cancer Test Uses Cheek Cells 00:00 New Cancer Test Uses Cheek Cells Sources: WebMD, American College of Chest Physicians In the near future, your dentist could test you for lung cancer by swabbing the inside of your cheek. This new lung cancer test could help detect the disease in its early stages, scientists from Canada report. That could save lives, since early lung cancer may be easier to treat than advanced lung cancer. The test checks cells from the inside of the cheek for abnormal changes in the nucleus, which is the command center of a cell. The test isn't ready for use yet. More studies are needed first. If the test succeeds in those studies, it might become a new tool for detecting early lung cancer, say the test's developers. They are Roger Kemp, PhD, and Bojana Turic, MD. They work at Perceptronix Medical Inc. in Vancouver, British Columbia. Their study was presented in Montreal at Chest 2005, the American College of Chest Physicians' 71st annual international scientific assembly. Goal: Early Detection Lung cancer is the No. 1 cause of cancer death for U.S. men and women. Early lung cancer is considered treatable, but most lung cancers are found later on, Turic notes in a news release. "We believe that early detection is the key to reducing lung cancer [deaths] and have focused our approach around detecting stage 1 lung cancer," he says. One day, the test may be used in doctors' or dentists' offices, says Turic. The test would likely be used to screen people at high risk for lung cancer -- not the general public. How It Works Changes in cells inside the mouth may signal the presence of cancer in other parts of the body. "We believe this effect extends to the lungs," write Kemp and Turic in their report. A small wooden spatula could be used to gather enough cheek cells by scraping the inside of the cheek, says Turic. "The procedure is simple enough that specimen collection could be done by patients themselves," he says. The researchers developed a high-tech system called Automated Quantitative Cytometry, which checks for subtle changes in the center of a cell -- called the nucleus -- which controls its function and contains its genetic material. The result is a score that predicts the likelihood of cancer's presence. Medical personnel don't have to manually check the cells, the researchers note. Study's Results Kemp and Turic tried the test on 1,140 people. The group included 150 people with confirmed lung cancer, roughly a third of whom had early (stage 1) lung cancer. The other 990 participants were at high risk for lung cancer but were not known to have the disease. The goal was to see if the test could correctly identify who had lung cancer and who didn't. Overall it was accurate at detecting 70% of cases of cancers when these cells existed in the specimens. <a href="http://www.webmd.com/content/article/114/111305">WebMD</a> <a href="http://sev.prnewswire.com/health-care-hospitals/20051031/CGM00331102005-1.html">PR Newswire News Release from ACCP</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=11 Lung Cancer Fact The 10 Essential Questions For Your Doctor http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=10 Lung Cancer Fact The 10 Essential Questions For Your Doctor 00:00 The 10 Essential Questions For Your Doctor You just got diagnosed with lung cancer. Here are 10 important questions to ask your doctor. Source: WebMD <ol> <li>Do I have a small cell or non-small cell cancer? </li> <li>How far has the cancer spread? What stage is my cancer? </li> <li>What are my chances for recovery? </li> <li>Can you surgically remove my cancer? </li> <li>How will the surgery affect my breathing or quality of life? </li> <li>Will I need chemotherapy or radiotherapy? </li> <li>What are the goals of these treatments? </li> <li>What are the potential complications? </li> <li>Is there a way to minimize any side effects of these treatments? </li> <li>Would any clinical trials be appropriate for me? </li> </ol> <a href="http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/11/1822_50618.htm?z=1822_81000_0000_f1_01">WebMD</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=10 Lung Cancer Fact French Workers Demand Justice over Asbestos Poisoning http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=14 Lung Cancer Fact French Workers Demand Justice over Asbestos Poisoning 00:00 French Workers Demand Justice over Asbestos Poisoning Source: www.WSWS.Com PARIS - A national protest of workers and victims of asbestos poisoning took place October 15 in Paris to demand criminal proceedings against those responsible. The protest, called by ANDEVA, the National Association for the Victims of Asbestos Poisoning, mobilised nearly 10,000 supporters, who marched under the slogan, "The Poisoners Must Be Brought to Trial." Thousands carried placards saying, "10 Deaths a Day, No One Responsible, No One Guilty! For Justice and to Keep the Memory Alive." Others carried banners with the inscription, "For a Criminal Trial on Asbestos." There were no official trade union delegations. The silent protest assembled on the rue de la Pepinière to commemorate the 3,000 victims per year who die of lung cancer linked to asbestos poisoning. The organisers symbolically renamed the street "The Street of the Poisoners." For many years, the street housed the headquarters of the International Asbestos Association, the French Asbestos Association, and the Industrial Guild of Asbestos Manufacturers. The national protest was the result of the determined fight of a group of widows in Dunkirk, who, since the beginning of the year, have regularly demonstrated outside the town's law courts demanding justice for their deceased husbands. After many years of struggle, victims of asbestos poisoning are now obtaining compensation through the civil courts, where employers have been found guilty of an "inexcusable wrong." However, these victims of asbestos poisoning by employers around Dunkirk, such as Eternit at Thiant, shipbuilding companies, and the Sollac steel works have seen their seven-year battle for a criminal trial thwarted by the local appeal courts in Douai and Dunkirk. In 2004, the Douai court pronounced the industrialists "guilty but not responsible" for their acts, under the cover of a legal amendment introduced by the Jospin Plural Left government, which ruled from 1997 to 2002. The amendment states that in the event of an industrial or health catastrophe, no one is guilty if there is "no deliberate criminal intent." The widows of Dunkirk hope to have this interpretation overturned by the Supreme Appeals Court next month. In 1971, there were no regulations in France governing asbestos dust levels, such as had existed in Britain since 1931. In 1983, French union leaders joined the employers in "defending jobs" in the asbestos industry, even as, 20 miles across the channel, a widespread workers' movement developed for a ban on its use. An article by Bob Shaw, a leading British Trotskyist and an ex-shipyard worker dying from mesothelioma (a form of lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos), summed up the movement of that time: "It is time the working class brought out the details of this crime, which is not a question of one or two workers being killed, or even hundreds, as in mining disasters, but hundreds of thousands who will die from the release of this material and its continued industrial use with complete disregard of workers' safety.... "The firms which are responsible and governments which permit such actions without interfering should be exposed and there should be a fight against this completely uncontrolled devastation of people's lives.... The firms concerned should be closed down and alternative work provided for workers thrown out of a job by such closures." France has become an international capital for the use of asbestos. In the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when most European governments had banned the use of asbestos in insulation and fire protection, France imported 80 kilos per inhabitant. Practically all public buildings can be said to be polluted areas, where workers and visitors alike are exposed to asbestos fibres that cause lung cancer up to 40 years after exposure. One such public building, the Paris University Faculty of Jussieu, serving 25,000 students and opened by De Gaulle in the 1960s, is notorious for its levels of the mineral fibre. It was from here that, in the 1970s, the first asbestos alert was issued, after the deaths of several research teachers were linked to asbestos. Marc Hindry, a member of the current Jussieu anti-asbestos committee, who was present at the Paris protest, said, "Those responsible are companies like St. Gobain and Eternit, the public authorities, and certain company doctors." The French multinational St. Gobain, whose empire is built on asbestos, has had a powerful lobby within government. Its former CEOs have assumed top posts in state enterprises and in government. Francis Mer, responsible for St. Gobin's industrial policy in 1978, was appointed president of the state steel group Usinor/Sacilor in 1986 by the Socialist Party government of President François Mitterrand. Roger Fauroux, minister for industry under the same government, later became honorary president of St. Gobain. François Malye, a French journalist, in his recent book, Asbestos: a Hundred Thousand Deaths to Come, describes the irresponsibility and indifference of government ministers to the danger of asbestos over a period of 40 years. This involved a cynical cover-up by the Permanent Asbestos Committee (PAC), the agency charged with vaunting all the "benefits" of the material. Between 1983 and 1995, during Mitterrand's presidency, which was supported by the left parties, the PAC advanced the "controlled use" policy, which claimed that, if certain precautions were taken in handling the material in compliance with regulations that had been enacted in 1977, it presented no risk. Malye stresses the responsibilty of those like Martine Aubrey of the Socialist Party, appointed director of labour relations by Socialist Party Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy. Malye quotes Jean-Luc Pasquier, a functionary of Aubrey, who was ordered to collaborate with the PAC lobby from the beginning of the Mitterrand presidency. At a hearing, Pasquier said, "I went there on orders." From whom? "From different hierarchical superiors." A silence. Including Martine Aubrey? "Of course. From 1984, she was the director of labour relations. She was informed about all the sensitive files, and asbestos was among them. If she had wanted us to leave the PAC, she, like her successors, had only to decide it." In 1991, when Aubrey was minister of labour, at a time when most European states were banning asbestos, she blocked the signing of EU decrees limiting its use. As Malye explains, "Over these two periods, during which Martine Aubrey occupied high posts in the Ministry of Labour, the Administrative Tribunal concluded 'that it cannot be maintained that the public authorities had no knowledge of the risk that exposed people were forced to bear by the maintenance of the regulations that were in place.' " Malye details the role, equally criminal, played by the trade union bureaucracy. The two main union confederations, the CFDT (which is close to the Socialist Party) and the CGT (linked to the Communist Party) sat on the PAC throughout its existence. Malye says that CGT delegate Michel Odet "did nothing for 10 years to obtain these famous tests [on substitute materials that could be used instead of asbestos]." He explained his presence alongside asbestos industrialists thus: "Some people were afraid of being used as a cover, when, in fact, it's necessary for social partners to arrive at a certain consensus. At the CGT, we are against the policy of refusing to sit on committees." Writes Malye: "On September 25 [1995], ministers and unions withdrew their representatives from the PAC, which is a pretty clear confession of an error which lasted nearly 13 years." Marc Hindry, rather naively, told the WSWS at the Paris demonstration, "Of course, the trade unions were duped and believed they could preserve jobs" by cooperating with the employers in the 1980s through the Permanent Asbestos Committee lobby. He added, "The unions didn't want to upset the left governments" under President Mitterrand. "There was also the campaign of disinformation carried out by the asbestos industry. This was aided by the specific nature of the disease, whose symptoms can take 30 years to develop." Michel Parigot, vice president of ANDEVA and president of the Anti-Asbestos Committee at Jussieu, told the WSWS: "The trade unions chose employment instead of health. In 1995, what forced them to move was the colleges and schools, where the risk to public health was high, and which provided a link between public health and occupational health," thus putting asbestos back in the public eye. A public outcry and a series of epidemiological studies forced President Jacques Chirac to ban asbestos in January1997. But Parigot is very concerned about how the problem will be managed now that the law requires a total inventory of public buildings to assess the presence of the material. "There is an obligation to locate and report the presence of asbestos in public buildings," he said, "a requirement put in place in 2003. But there has been no checking up on these inventories. By May 2005, only half of all buildings had been checked." The extent of this public health scandal is an indictment of international capitalism and its apologists. France banned asbestos imports in December 1996, which led to a vociferous dispute with Canada at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Canada complained that France was breaking multilateral trade agreements. In September 2000, the WTO found in favour of France, indicating the ban was "necessary to protect human health." Brazil, the US and Zimbabwe, all heavily involved in mining and /or manufacturing asbestos products, were also involved in the dispute. Although the WTO ruled in favour of France, it claimed France had violated WTO rules by discriminating against Canadian asbestos, which the WTO deemed to be a "like" product to safer domestic substitutes. This interpretation is very worrying for environmentalists because it fails to distinguish between toxic and non-toxic products. The underdeveloped countries are now prey to multinational asbestos producers and manufacturers looking to compensate for lost markets in the West, much like the tobacco industry's turn to the poorest countries. The scale of the problem can be seen in the US and Australia, where legal battles have produced compensation payouts. The US company Certain Teed, a subsidiary of St. Gobain, is facing 108,000 litigation claims for compensation, and has had to set aside 426 million euros, representing nearly half of its profits for 2004. Source: wswg.com By Pierre Mabut 10/26/2005 <a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/france-o26.shtml">World Socialist Web Site</a> http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=14 Lung Cancer Fact Lung Cancer Is The Leading Cause of Death in US http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=8 Lung Cancer Fact Lung Cancer Is The Leading Cause of Death in US 00:00 Lung Cancer Is The Leading Cause of Death in US USA Weekend Health Smart: Tedd Mitchell, MD Detecting lung cancer. CT scans can spot tumors early, but there are risks. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the United States: 93,010 men and 79,560 women will be diagnosed this year. 90,490 men and 73,020 women will die from it this year. Lung cancer has made headlines recently, with the death of ABC News anchor Peter Jennings and the diagnosis of Dana Reeve, widow of actor Christopher Reeve. Physicians long have understood that surviving lung cancer depends largely on catching it early. Unfortunately, the standard chest X-ray hasn't been very effective in finding the disease at a stage early enough to help most patients. But we don't have to rely on that alone anymore. Computed tomography (CT), widely available since the 1980s, is constantly being refined. CT scans are far more sensitive than chest X-rays, thus more effective at detecting tumors (they also find more benign growths). Caveat: While those at risk might benefit from an annual CT scan (which can run more than $1,000), the radiation accumulated over time actually may raise the cancer risk. CT scans eventually may change the outcome for Americans diagnosed with lung cancer, if earlier detection leads to improved survival rates. Tedd Mitchell, M.D., is medical director of the Wellness Program at the renowned Cooper Clinic in Dallas. http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=8 Lung Cancer Fact Nonsmokers Can Be Cancer Victims, Too http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=9 Lung Cancer Fact Nonsmokers Can Be Cancer Victims, Too 00:00 Nonsmokers Can Be Cancer Victims, Too AP Through CNN 8/10/05 Dana Reeve situation isn't as uncommon as it would seem (AP) -- Most lung cancers occur in smokers, but nonsmoker Dana Reeve's situation isn't as uncommon as it appears. Like Reeve, widow of "Superman" star Christopher Reeve, 1 in 5 women diagnosed with the disease never lit a cigarette, doctors say. Yet they share an unfortunate stigma with cancer patients who smoked. "The underlying assumption is, you were a smoker and you caused this, therefore you're not going to get my sympathy," said Tom Labrecque Jr., who started a foundation to raise awareness after his nonsmoker father died several years ago of the disease. No one "deserves" lung cancer, doctors say. But nonsmokers do have one silver lining: They respond better to the newest targeted cancer drugs like Iressa and Tarceva. That's because people who get lung cancer early in life, like the 44-year-old Reeve, are more likely to have genetic factors fueling their disease, doctors say. Only 3 percent of lung cancers occur in people under 45, regardless of smoking status. Reeve, an actress who leads a paralysis research foundation named for her husband who died last year, disclosed Tuesday that she was being treated for lung cancer but gave no details on how or where. Her announcement came two days after ABC News anchor Peter Jennings, a smoker, died of lung cancer at age 67. Despite their different smoking histories, they share the most common cancer in the world, and the deadliest. This year in the United States, an estimated 93,010 men and 79,560 women will be diagnosed with lung cancer and almost an equal number -- 90,490 men and 73,020 women -- will die of it. About 10 percent of men and 20 percent of women with lung cancer never smoked, and the number of nonsmokers with the disease doesn't seem to be rising significantly, said Dr. Michael Thun, chief epidemiologist for the American Cancer Society. But awareness may be on the rise because of the aggressive anti-smoking campaigns in recent years. And stigma may be rising, too. "When people get breast cancer, people say, 'What can I do to help you?' When people get lung cancer, people say, 'Did you smoke?"' said Susan Mantel, executive director of Joan's Legacy, a fund-raising group named for Joan Scarangello, a nonsmoker and former head writer for newsman Tom Brokaw. Scarangello died in 2001 of lung cancer, as did her nonsmoking mother before her. "There is a definite stigma," said Labrecque, recalling comments after the funeral for his father, a former chairman of Chase Manhattan Corp. "People would say, 'I didn't know he smoked,"' he said. His foundation's Web site even acknowledges this trend, by stating that more than half of people newly diagnosed with lung cancer each year have either never smoked or quit smoking. Doctors who treat the disease, like Dr. Bruce Johnson of Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston, bristle at the notion of "innocent" and "not so innocent" victims. "People who smoke don't deserve to get lung cancer, and people have worked very hard to quit," he said. Nonsmokers who have surgery for their cancer have a lower risk of developing a second tumor than smokers. Also, smokers who quit after cancer surgery have better survival odds, he noted. Nonsmokers also respond better to Iressa and Tarceva, said Dr. Alan Sandler, director of thoracic oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville, who has been involved in testing these new-generation drugs that more precisely attack the molecular factors making these cancers grow. "The malignant cell in a smoker is much more complex" and has more mutations than nonsmokers tend to have, Sandler said. Researchers now are studying whether nonsmokers do better in general on chemotherapy than smokers, he said. Meanwhile, the cancer society is hoping for an eventual decline in lung cancer cases to mirror the decline in smoking rates. "Cigarette consumption is down where it was at the start of World War II. About 1 in 5 people are current smokers," Thun said. "Lung cancer death rates have fallen 17 percent in men from 1990 to 2002. Both incidence and death rates have leveled off in women, so we are turning the corner." As for stigma, he would rather see it on those who sell cigarettes than those who use them. "If there's blame to go around, most of the blame falls on the tobacco companies," Thun said. http://ds.coon2.ibctv.com/articles/?post_id=9 Lung Cancer Fact