• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Reeve's Death Highlights Lung-Cancer Woes

Posted on: Thursday, 9 March 2006, 18:00 CST

By CHRISTINE DELL'AMORE

The story of Dana Reeve, actor Christopher Reeve's widow who succumbed to lung cancer Monday, accentuates the woefully underfunded status of the disease in the United States, advocates say.

Lung cancer, for decades the most lethal cancer for men and women, has lagged behind more robust campaigns against other cancers. The reason is twofold: many of the would-be activists die rapidly from the disease, and their cause is often undercut by a tendency to blame the victim.

The attitude has been, 'Well, if people just didn't smoke we wouldn't have lung cancer, so why should we spend money trying to find a treatment?' said Norman Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association.

Yet Reeve, who died at 44 after a seven-month battle with the disease, never smoked. Bringing this to light could derive some good from the tragedy by taking the blame off the victims, said Michael Thun, who heads epidemiological research for the American Cancer Society.

Both Edelman and Thun emphasized tobacco companies are the ones that should be held accountable, due to their intense, sophisticated advertising.

(Dana Reeve's) death and her story puts a human face on a disease that gets underfunded, Thun added.

Although lung cancer in a 40-year-old woman is a rare event, Thun said, it does occur in non-smokers. Smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer, and radon, a gas present in many homes and office buildings, is traced to 12 percent of cases, according to the ALA. Other chemicals, such as asbestos, contribute as well. Genes also play a part: Some people may have a genetic makeup more or less susceptible to lung cancer.

Lung cancer claims 160,000 lives annually, more than the next five common cancers combined. Mortality rates have plateaued for men, but they continue to rise for women.

Additionally, as movements for other cancers such as prostate and breast cancer have gathered strength, little political pressure has been placed on halting lung cancer. While five-year survival rates for both breast and prostate cancers stand at more than 90 percent, only 15 percent of lung-cancer victims are still living after five years. That's because half of lung cancer cases are diagnosed at a very late stage, as symptoms do not occur until the disease is well-advanced.

This is more of a political problem than a science problem right now, said Laurie Fenton, president of the Lung Cancer Alliance, the only non-profit organization devoted solely to stopping the disease. Without the ability to develop grassroots voices and pressures to put on public health leaders, we continue to see lung cancer as the most lethal of all cancers.

Fenton said the National Cancer Institute, the federal body responsible for doling out money for cancer research, has allowed lung cancer to fall by the wayside. Where have they been? she asked.

A representative at NCI was not available to comment on how funding decisions are made. However, an NCI press officer provided data from the 2004 NCI Fact Book, which shows that the institute did increase its investment in lung-cancer research.

NCI funding for lung cancer rose from $175 million in fiscal year 2000 to an estimated $279.2 million in fiscal year 2005, the report stated.

Additionally, in August 2005 NCI announced an initiative to eliminate suffering and death from lung cancer by 2015. A team has been assembled to enact three strategies: to drive down tobacco use, improve the likelihood of a cure through earlier detection and treatment of lung cancer, and introduce novel, targeted therapies through partnerships with biology initiatives.

The NCI has also started the National Lung Screening Trial, an eight-year trial that will test both spiral computed tomography -- or CT scans -- and standard chest X-rays for their ability to detect lung cancer early.

Although the technology for picking up tumors is not fine-tuned just yet, Edelman said he and many others are hopeful the trial will prove promising for early detection -- one of the best strategies for reducing lung-cancer mortality.

However, NCI's cancer programs may lose steam if proposed cuts to cancer research in President Bush's FY2007 budget go through.

Bush has proposed NCI receive $70 million less than two fiscal years ago and $186 million below what the Congressional Budget Office estimates is needed to maintain current projects, according to ACS data. It is the first cut to cancer research in over a decade.

From a macro perspective, cancer research funding is headed in the wrong direction, said Wendy Selig, vice president for legislative affairs for ACS. On the other hand, Selig stressed there is a silver lining. There's a lot of good news about cancer, she said. In 2006, for instance, cancer deaths dropped in the United States -- a milestone in the fight against the disease.

Many factors are competing for the attention of Congress this year -- wars, natural disasters, avian flu -- but cancer cannot be overlooked, she added.

Maybe the renewed focus (on lung cancer) this week will make people understand 1,500 people dying a day is a crisis too, Selig said.

Although the FY2007 budget still allocates $4.7 billion to NCI overall, a huge sum of money, Selig said to put it in perspective the United States is drained of $210 billion of indirect and direct costs of cancer every year.

The tipping point has begun, and we won't stop until lung cancer receives the same compassion and support as every other major health concern, she said. It's been too long ignored.

Source: United Press International

More News in this Category