Routine Exam May Have Been Life-Saver for Greenville's WYFF Weathercaster Keisha Kirkland

If you're young and healthy, it's easy to think that there's not much reason to worry about your health and that an annual physical is something that other, older people have to think about, not you.

But for WYFF 4 Weathercaster Keisha Kirkland, getting that annual physical may have just saved her life.

Keisha, 36, said that she felt perfectly healthy, but because of a family history of heart disease, she had some tests run several months ago.

Her heart was fine, but doctors found that she had the beginning stages of lung cancer.
"I’ve never smoked. I’m young, you know, in shape, I exercise, eat well," Keisha told WYFF News 4's Jane Robelot. "But, hey, I’m still dealing with this."

Dr. James Stephenson of Greenville Hospital System, Keisha's surgeon, said discovering the cancer was almost as unlikely as her chances of having it.

"She decided to have a calcium scoring test to look for heart disease due to some family history," Stephenson said. "Just by chance this abnormal area in her lung was noted on that scan."

Read more.

Read Keisha Kirkland's Bio.

Dr. Joan Schiller, National Lung Cancer Partnership President, was nominated to receive the Lynn Kotsiantos Lifetime Achievement Award

Congratulations!

Dr. Joan Schiller, Partnership President, was nominated to receive the Lynn Kotsiantos Lifetime Achievement Award by the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago (RHAMC). The award is made every year in honor of Lynn, a young mother who died from lung cancer.

Dr. Schiller will accept the award at RHAMC's May 7th Inspiration benefit for women's lung health in Chicago, IL.

Read more about Dr. Schiller, the National Lung Cancer Partnership's President here.

Spring issue of CR magazine reports: The High Costs of Cancer Mortality

A new analysis helps put research funding into perspective
By Hannah Hoag

...new studies found that at least 25 percent of cancer’s costs could be attributed to lung cancer. In 2008, an estimated 161,840 people died of the disease in the U.S., far more than died of any other cancer. The researchers further calculated that if lung cancer mortality rates declined by 1 percent annually, the value of life lost in 2020 due to lung cancer would drop from a projected $433 billion to $355 billion. A 4 percent annual decline in these mortality rates would put the estimated value of life lost to lung cancer in 2020 at $192 billion.

“The issue with lung cancer is that we are so naive about what we really know,” says Regina Vidaver, the executive director of the National Lung Cancer Partnership. “We need more knowledge in every single aspect, certainly in understanding [cell] signaling pathways and where they go wrong in cancer initiation and drug-resistance development.”

Even so, Laurie Fenton Ambrose, the president and chief executive officer of the Lung Cancer Alliance, is optimistic that a 1 percent annual decline in mortality is possible with additional funding for lung cancer research, including efforts aimed at finding cancers earlier. “Most cancers that have seen improvements are due to a more robust mechanism to detect their cancers early,” she says.

Read more.

Lung Cancer Alliance to Canadian Medical Association Journal Editorial on Lung Cancer Screening

Monday, April 20, 2009: Last week, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published an editorial discussing lung cancer screening. In the piece, they misrepresented LCA's position on lung cancer screening. In addition, they came to the conclusion that the best use of funding for lung cancer would be in tobacco control and cessation programs. LCA President & CEO, Laurie Fenton Ambrose, sent in a Letter to the Editor of the Canadian Medical Association Journal clarifying LCA's position on lung cancer screening and urging those within the community to address the disease in a comprehensive manner with tobacco cessation programs, early detection and treatment research.

View the Canadian Medical Association Journal Editorial

LCA's response: (Text Below)

Dear Editor,

The editorial in the April 14, 2009 Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled "A Pause for Thought on Lung Cancer Screening", by M.B. Stanbrook and K. Flegel accuses the Lung Cancer Alliance of having "promoted" CT screening for lung cancer. For the record, our position is that those at high risk for lung cancer (those with greater than 20 pack year smoking history, those with a family history of lung cancer, those with exgtensive exposure to asbestos, radon, Agent Orange and other carcinogens) should speak with their doctors about the risks and benefits of a CT scan.

Please note that we emphasize those at high risk, not population based screening. Even before mammograms and psa testing became widely accepted population based screening tests in the US. (The 5-year survival rates for those cancers are now 88% and 99% respectively and whether or not screening played a role in this increase in survival rates you can debate). The 5-year survival rate for lung cancer is still only 15%.

Lung cancer is far more lethal for the individual patient and in its overall public health impact. Nearly one in every three cancer deaths in the United States is due to lung cancer and only 16% of patients are being diagnosed at an early, most curable stage. Advances in CT scanning now present an alternative to late stage diagnosis for those at hight risk and recent papers coming out of ongoing European trials are further refining the process of CT screening.

Certainly we can look forward to a simple biomarker to further refine the optimal population subset for a CT scan, and we have adocated strongly for reseach funding in these areas. But in the meantime are you suggesting that those at high risk should do nothing? Your conclusion is: "In the meantime, given how much we know about the prevention of lung cancer, targeting smoking avoidance and cessation, rather than detection and management of lung cancer, would seem a better investment."

Sadly this statement ignores the fact that over 50% of lung cancer is being diagnosed in people who have already quit, many of them decades ago. Another 15 to 20% have never smoked. Without considering these individuals,any investment analysis in lung cancer in 2009 and the future is incomplete and suspect.

Sincerely,
Laurie Fenton Ambrose
President & CEO
Lung Cancer Alliance

Read more about the Lung Cancer Alliance's effort to fight back against lung cancer.

The New York Times: Voices of Lung Cancer

Lung cancer is the biggest cancer killer in the country, killing more than 160,000 people a year. Yet the disease remains low on the list of cancer funding priorities. In 2006, the National Cancer Institute spent $1,518 for each new case of lung cancer and $1,630 for each lung cancer death. By comparison, the agency spent $13,452 per death on breast cancer, which takes 41,000 lives annually.

Read more.