How did this happen? Nearly twice as many women die of lung cancer than breast cancer, and three times as many men die of lung cancer than prostate cancer. Yet, lung cancer receives little public notice and even less research funding. The lung cancer survival rate for both men and women has remained virtually unchanged for more than three decades and, today, lung cancer remains among the most virulent and deadly diseases.
Perhaps it is because the prevalent myth about lung cancer is that the only people who get it are smokers. Fact: Eighty percent of those who suffer and die from lung cancer have never smoked or quit smoking decades ago.
Years ago, the states sued the tobacco companies and won. Yet the resulting revenue from what is called the Master Settlement Agreement did not deliver a single cent to lung cancer research.
Now in California, Proposition 29 will be on the June 5 ballot and, if passed, will increase the cigarette tax by $1 per pack. Should it pass, 60 percent of its funding is earmarked for grants and loans to support research into the prevention, detection and treatment of cancers and other tobacco-related illnesses, plus smoking prevention among children. While not exclusively tagged for lung cancer, the bill is expected to deliver $700 million annually.
Not surprisingly, it is strongly opposed by the tobacco industry.
Nationally, the Lung Cancer Mortality Reduction Act (H.R. 1394 and S. 754) would encourage lawmakers to make lung cancer a national public health priority and calls for a comprehensive plan to address all aspects of the disease. The legislation authorizes multiple government agencies to develop a comprehensive plan of action to coordinate prevention, early detection and treatment research.
The National Lung Cancer screening trial that concluded in November 2010 shows that by using CT screening for early detection, the mortality rate can be reduced by 20 percent, which is greater than PSA screening for prostate cancer, mammography for breast cancer and colonoscopies for colon cancer. Other studies show that the mortality rate can be reduced as much as 90 percent using CT scans for early detection.
Just this month, news out of the national Lung Cancer Alliance also shows that treating early stages of lung cancer is much cheaper than treating late stages. This issue opens the door for insurance companies to cover early detection screening for those at high risk.
While both of California’s U.S. senators have signed on to S. 754, too many others – even those who have lost family members to lung cancers – continue not to join in on the theory, or excuse, that other agendas are “more important.” Yet the number of other states’ leaders of all parties backing this legislative “call to action” on lung cancer continues, fortunately, to gain in strength and numbers.
Still, there’s work to be done. Lung cancer is responsible for one out of three cancer deaths, and funding still trails the levels of other major cancers. (Lung cancer gets about $1,250 per death; breast cancer $26,500.) Survival rates, too, have all increased for other cancers yet remain unchanged for lung cancer.