Early Detection by CT Scan

One of Joan's granddaughters makes the case in Lit class... Julia Andretta Mrs. Whitaker Honors 9th Literature and Composition 21 April 2008 The Lung Cancer Answer: Early Detection by CT Scan Each year, millions of people die of the various types of cancer. Prominent among these cancer killers is lung cancer. Lung cancer takes more lives each year than breast cancer, prostate cancer, colon cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer and melanoma combined. With these startling statistics, one would think that there is no way to detect lung cancer at its most curable stage, but there is a way and it is a CT scan. If there is a solution, then why does lung cancer have such a drastically low survival rate and take so many lives each year? (Lung cancer takes approximately 165,000 people each year and only 15% of those diagnosed with lung cancer will live more than five (5) years.) The answer is controversial. Yes, prescreening of a patient with a CT scan would allow doctors to detect the lung cancers early when they are still small and very curable, but would it be worth the cost of the scan or the risk of exposing someone to the intense radiation? There are those who believe it is well worth the risks. There is also the belief that the fight against lung cancer can be won through pharmaceutical research and clinical trials. Without conclusive evidence that the high costs and radiation exposure risks are truly harmful, we should not limit our resources in our quest to conquer lung cancer to only pharmaceutical treatment and research. Early detection of this horrific disease through CT scanning should be used so it can be treated earlier; therefore, increasing the tragically low survival rate. Before picking a side, one must know, first of all, what a CT scan is. CT stands for computed tomography, which is a non-invasive, painless medical test. These scans were first introduced in the 1970s, and when one gets a CT scan, spiral, low-dose X-rays circulate the body as the patient is transported through a metal tube (Arnst 4). According to the International Early Lung Cancer Action Program, or I-ELCAP, “the CT scan is a diagnostic procedure that takes a detailed cross-sectional X-ray picture of a ‘slice’ of the body.” It only takes a matter of minutes to receive a CT scan, and it does not cause the patient discomfort. There is no other diagnostic tool that can show the exact location, as well as the size and shape of a patient’s organs and tissues that a CT scan. Pharmaceutical research and treatment, however, is the current standard in approaching lung cancer. Pharmaceutical companies are dedicated to developing new, safe medicines to treat advanced lung cancer. Prescription medicines only comprise a small portion of total healthcare costs, meaning that getting these medicines does not cost an excessive amount, especially in comparison to receiving a CT scan. Clinical trials, which are comparison tests of investigational drugs, are a common practice in lung cancer research and treatment. The reason that this is currently the most widely-used procedure is simply because it is believed to be safer and it doesn’t cost as much as a CT scan. So which of these approaches is the best to take if we wish to succeed in our fight against lung cancer? To decide, the risks and disadvantages of CT scanning should be weighed against its benefits and advantages. The prime disadvantages of these scans are the amount of radiation the patients who get these scans are exposed to and the immense cost. However, when compared to the good things that may come of getting CT scans, the bad things seem quite trivial prices to pay. CT scanning can detect lung cancer earlier than any other technology (i.e. X-rays); sometimes before any symptoms are evident. If lung cancer is found at this incredibly early stage it is far easier to treat and the survival rate rises dramatically. Earlier remission and/or cure of a patient will ultimately result in reduced health care costs, which would balance out the cost of getting the scan in the first place. According to the Journal of Medical Association, CT scans discovered almost three times as many lung cancers as would have been predicted by other forms of detecting technology (Arnst 21). A large study released on Oct. 25, 2007 showed that CT scans are able to detect lung cancer at its earliest and most curable stage in 85% of patients (Arnst 4). So it becomes a question of whether possibly finding lung cancer at its most treatable stage and raising your survival rate tremendously is worth being exposed to a large amount of radiation for a few minutes. There are advantages and disadvantages of pharmaceutical intervention in eradicating lung cancer. Pharmaceutical intervention is much more cost effective than technological involvement, and clinical trials offer patients an opportunity to receive the best healthcare available and to help others who are also affected by lung cancer (Lung Cancer Alliance). Both of these points are extreme advantages to this process; it doesn’t cost as much as a CT scan and clinical trials not only give top-of-the-line healthcare to those who volunteer for it, but it can also help lead to discoveries that can lead to new drugs that can perhaps lead to the extreme lung-cancer-fighting drug. There is no assurance, however, that the prescription medicines which are imported into the United States from other countries are safe (Lung Cancer Alliance). For all patients know, they could be being harmed by their pharmaceuticals rather than helped. Also, depending on the stage at which lung cancer is detected, certain drugs may not be as effective as they would have been were the cancer detected earlier. So what is the true purpose of research dollars being spent on drugs that may not have a chance of arresting the lung cancer? Might they have a better chance to help in this quest to eradicate lung cancer if the disease is found at earlier stages and subsequently treated with the researched pharmaceuticals? Possibly. Pharmaceutical research is also a much slower-going method of lung cancer battle and the practice is verging on disorganization (Ferraldeschi, Roberta, et al 2135).* With the glaring proof that early detection would severely decrease the death toll of lung cancer, it is difficult to believe that there is a controversy at all. Can one put a price on quality of life? The reality of the dose of radiation is that the screening is administered with no more radiation than a woman would receive during a mammogram (I-ELCAP). Just think of how much radiation one would receive if they were being treated for their cancer with radiation therapy? “The availability of early detection for lung cancer is widely unknown, inexcusably underencouraged, underfunded, and underinsured.” (Bonnie J. Addario) I believe that prescreening with the low-dose CT scan is the way to prolong survival of this horrific disease.