Number of non smokers getting lung cancer increasing?

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

A family member of mine who doesn't smoke got recently diagnosed with lung cancer. He's not married to a smoker and hasn't worked where people have smoked either so he hasn't been subject to second hand smoking. A friend of the family also got lung cancer a couple of years ago and she's never smoked in her life. Now I heard of a neighbour being diagnosed with lung cancer as well, and neither she's ever smoked a cigarette in her entire life!

I know I can't draw any statistical conclusions from just three persons, but reading in cancer forums on the net I get a feeling that the number of non smokers coming down with lung cancer is increasing dramatically. I live in Finland, I wonder if it is the same in other countries?

brainman

As you pointed out, there is not a direct "I smoke therefore I will get lung cancer" correlation. Plus, there are many other known and unknown causes for lung cancer.

As far as an increase in numbers of cases, that too is a complex issue. Baby-boomers who started smoking in the 1960’s are now in their 50’s-60’s… prime time for lung cancers.

Furthermore, it is easy to mioptically look at the smoking-lung cancer relationship and forget that smoking also contributes to COPD, vascular diseases, and heart diseases. So, regardless of the cancer statistics, smoking is a bad idea.

On a personal note (and non statistical as well), I have seen too many friends who smoked die of cancer.
_________________
Jim
Site Administrator and long-term cancer survivor
1992 Astrocytoma grade 2, left motor strip
2005 Recurrence this time said to be an Oligodendoglioma grade 3, same location.
My Story Part 1: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=7350
My Story Part 2: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8029
Blog http://jimhawkinsport.blogspot.com/

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

I don't deny that smoking is the main contributor to lung cancer as well as to several other diseases.

Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer right now. One reason for this is that there's too little research going on on lung cancer compared to researches on other cancers. And one reason to this I think is that so much energy when it comes to preventing lung cancer is put on getting people to quit their cigarettes. And it's always a good idea to quit smoking for those who smoke, but there will still be lots of people out there dying of cancer who's never smoked one cigarette in their whole lives.

brainman

I totally agree!! We need a lot more research into the causes of lung cancers as well as other cancers. However, President Bush’s budget has decreased the funding for medical research.
_________________
Jim
Site Administrator and long-term cancer survivor
1992 Astrocytoma grade 2, left motor strip
2005 Recurrence this time said to be an Oligodendoglioma grade 3, same location.
My Story Part 1: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?p=7350
My Story Part 2: http://cancerforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=8029
Blog http://jimhawkinsport.blogspot.com/

keithwayne204 · New User Joined: 23 Feb 2006 Posts: 3

hi there iam a non smoker 34 yrs old when i was dignosed in 2004 of
April.... it was a shock to learn i have sclc i do know that thy put me on a drug called alimita its shrunk the cancer verry fast the infusion only last's for 8 minutes my nurse was so amazed and baffeled as how quick it took to be done its like the other chemos but not as strong lol at least you dont lose your hair as fast which is verry depresssing at times but life is way important and hair does grow back but your in my prayers and good luck but i would look into alimita its a verry good drug so far,i was told that tarcivea would help and irresa but neither did thy didnt have alot of time to find a chemo that i could take cause my cancer was a 6.2 cem and is now a 1.3 cem so thats great results i took it the alimita from dec after christmas till now iam on my 3rd cycel

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

Hi keithwayne!

Yes, lots of non smokers get lung cancer too.

My grandfather died of lung cancer when my father was very young. Everyone said my grandfather got his lung cancer because he had smoked too much, and this made my father promise that at least he would never put a cigarette in his mouth. And he kept his promise but now he's gotten diagnosed with lung cancer as well. And he's only 43 years old. So it's not just the cigarettes, I think the genes play a big role too, at least for some people.

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

[quote="Anneli"]
Lung cancer has one of the lowest survival outcomes of any cancer right now. One reason for this is that there's too little research going on on lung cancer compared to researches on other cancers.[/quote]

Here's an example of this from Britain:

Lung cancer research funding criticized

LONDON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- Charities called on the British government to provide better treatment to underserved lung cancer sufferers stereotyped by the "smokers' disease."

Lung cancer claims more British lives than leukemia, breast and prostate cancer combined, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation and Macmillan Cancer Relief said.

However, the groups said Britain spends just 4 percent of its research budget on lung cancer.

"Lung cancer has been the poor relation for far too long and it's time to ensure patients get the care that they deserve," Peter Cardy, Macmillan's chief executive, told The London Telegraph.

"Greater attention needs to be given to the emotional and practical difficulties experienced by lung cancer patients and their (care givers)" said Mike Unger, chief executive of Lung Cancer Foundation.

The groups called on Britain to set minimum standards for treating lung cancer victims.

http://www.upi.com/ConsumerHealthDaily/view.php?StoryID=20060207-041650-7912r

adr22367 · Experienced user Joined: 17 May 2005 Posts: 78

I'm glad to hear Alimta helped you, that was the only one that my Dad's grow. He has 4 tumors, 3 were at bay for 19 months, while the largest had minimal growth each CAT scan. He is now trying Avastin, so hopefully the other 3 will stay the same again.

TracyS

I hear you. My brother (4 Cool

has/had throat cancer recently. He has never smoked, nor has his wife. He's always worked in a smoke free workplace (retail). He doesnt sing, doesnt do anything much with his throat that SHOULD cause cancer. My mom did smoke for a few years when we were kids but he left that environment when he was 17.

I must say that I wonder about cancer a lot. My grandparents (all 4 or them) died of - Grandma of cirrhosis of the liver (alcohol) 55, Grandpa Alzeimhers/pneumonia (65), Nan - heart attack due to eating so much fat in her life (72), Grandad (74 - heart attack/heartbreak..he missed his wife too much). They all smoked like chimneys - heavy duty Camels since very young and none had smoking related illnesses.

My Mum got cancer only years after after giving up. A few friends only got cancer way after they quit smoking. My smoker uncle got bowel cancer after he fell off a ladder. A totally non-smoking ever, teetotal young friend got bowel cancer after falling off a ladder.

I cant help but look at the old diagnosis for peptic ulcers...poor eating habits (so many war veterans got paid for that), smoking, stress etc and so forth but in the end it was the pylorium bacterium that was the culprit..something anyone could get, anywhere! AND how many of you have heard chocolate or peanuts etc can cause cancer?

The truth is, as the scientists say,....95% of us have a cancer gene...it only takes a little push to kick it into gear. It doesnt need to be smoking related and sometimes I think its not at all. I think its trauma related....whether that be from being banged physically from a hitting type of way or major change...so that the anti-cancerogenic free radicals dont know what to do anymore...so instead of fixing the normal crap...they start eating into good tissues to compensate.

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

Yes, Tracy, I too think that the genes have a lot to do with getting cancer or not.

My father comes from a "cancer family". He has lung cancer, and so had his father, his mother died of brest cancer and his brother got prostate cancer when he was 51 (which is a pretty young age for getting that particular type of cancer).

Anneli · Regular Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 13 Location: Finland

The Thinkers: Celebrity deaths shine light on lung cancer
Monday, March 27, 2006

By Mark Roth, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

There is no denying the tragedy of Dana Reeve's death from lung cancer at the age of 44 earlier this month.

But there may be a small silver lining from the passing of Christopher Reeve's widow, says Jill Siegfried, a nationally known lung cancer expert at the University of Pittsburgh.

It could open up one more window to illuminate a disease that has been shadowed by a stigma of shame and blame.

Even though it is the leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States, lung cancer attracts much less research money than other major cancers, Dr. Siegfried said, largely because it is so strongly linked to smoking that people often blame the victims for giving the disease to themselves.

But Mrs. Reeve, known worldwide for her advocacy for paralysis patients, never smoked. In fact, 13 percent of the people who get lung cancer each year have never smoked, and 80 percent are women.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06086/677174-114.stm

kris114 · New User Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 3

As a follow-up to the article on Jill Siegfried from UPMC in Pittsburgh, please be advised that there are genetic characteristics favorable to significant improvements for people with lung cancer. The genetic characteristics are associated primarily with lung cancer sufferers who are non-smokers, women, with NSCLC, and EGFR mutations in specific genes(Epidermal Growth Factor Recepter).

I did research and found that the drug Tarceva can be effective for people who have these particular characteristics. The results of this drug for people with these genetic characteristics are pretty impressive-- the median survival rates have been recently documented by researchers at Sloan Kettering at 34 months for the EGFR exon 19 deletion (see link below). http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/3/839

[Excerpt: After treatment with erlotinib (n = 12) or gefitinib (n = 22), patients with EGFR mutations had a median overall survival of 20 months. After treatment with erlotinib or gefitinib, patients with EGFR exon 19 deletions had significantly longer median survival than patients with EGFR L858R (34 versus 8 months; log-rank P = 0.01). ]

It sounds very technical, but do a search on Tarceva (erlotinib is generic name) and ask your doctor about this drug, and whether your family member may have these EGFR characteristics. This drug is prescribed as a second line of cancer treatment if chemotherapy fails. The problem though, is that typically genetic testing is not routinely performed for lung cancer patients, most likely due to cost.

ambonieum · New User Joined: 24 Apr 2006 Posts: 2

Hey, just curious, but can this website be trusted?

[url=http://lung-cancer-symptoms.axn24.net]Lung Cancer Symptoms[/url]

	Cancer Forums Forum Index -> Lung Cancer Forum	All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

A website for discussions about any type of cancer, including lung cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma, prostate cancer, laryngeal cancer, leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma and others