Early Research Suggests a Path to Predict and Prevent Lung Cancer (nytimes.com) 12
Scientists "have made a discovery that may help prevent some people from developing lung cancer," reports the New York Times, noting that lung cancer "kills more people worldwide than any other cancer."
A team of more than 80 researchers working across four continents have identified a set of proteins in the blood that accurately predict lung cancers more than five years before diagnosis. The scientists also found early evidence that an existing anti-inflammatory drug could significantly reduce lung cancer risk in people with elevated concentrations of these proteins, which they linked to inflammation. More research is needed before a test based on these proteins could be ready for use in patients. And scientists would still need to run a randomized trial to determine whether the drug prevents lung cancers. Still, outside experts said the findings, which were published on Thursday in the journal Cell, offer a promising starting point toward a long-held public health goal...
Led by Dr. Swanton, Dr. Tej Pandya, a Ph.D. student, and other researchers took a set of 48,000 blood samples from the UK Biobank and used machine learning to identify 14 proteins associated with the development of lung cancer. When the researchers looked at the presence of those proteins and also took into account a patient's age, smoking status and history of lung disease, they were able to predict who would develop lung cancer more accurately than the best risk assessment models currently in use...
Using mouse and cell models, the scientists showed that these proteins increased when a specific inflammatory pathway was activated. Smoking and air pollution can activate that pathway. This adds to the evidence that it isn't just genetic mutations caused by smoking, pollution or other factors that are driving lung cancers. Rather, Dr. Swanton said, the findings suggest that "smoke causes mutations and inflammation, which together cause cancer." They also found that the signature was increased in people who later developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary fibrosis, pointing to a common inflammatory environment upstream of all three diseases.
Led by Dr. Swanton, Dr. Tej Pandya, a Ph.D. student, and other researchers took a set of 48,000 blood samples from the UK Biobank and used machine learning to identify 14 proteins associated with the development of lung cancer. When the researchers looked at the presence of those proteins and also took into account a patient's age, smoking status and history of lung disease, they were able to predict who would develop lung cancer more accurately than the best risk assessment models currently in use...
Using mouse and cell models, the scientists showed that these proteins increased when a specific inflammatory pathway was activated. Smoking and air pollution can activate that pathway. This adds to the evidence that it isn't just genetic mutations caused by smoking, pollution or other factors that are driving lung cancers. Rather, Dr. Swanton said, the findings suggest that "smoke causes mutations and inflammation, which together cause cancer." They also found that the signature was increased in people who later developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary fibrosis, pointing to a common inflammatory environment upstream of all three diseases.
Donâ(TM)t smoke (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously? They just discovered that smoking causes lung cancer? Did they tell an AI that or something?
Why is this even an article?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet your parents are proud.
You know people get lung cancer (Score:3)
We have been consistently making cars cleaner to the point where vast swaths of them are zero emissions. I've mentioned this before but if you are in a city or even a decent sized town you're breathing in little bits of tire particulate and there is no way around that. People really really really really hate it when I point that out because people grew up loving cars so the idea that there is a problem with cars that is basically impossible to solve doesn't go ov
Re: (Score:3)
First off it's not unsolvable, "particulates" aren't necessarily dangerous. Regular air background has particulates of sand and other mineral crap of 10 to 100 g/m^3 -- not counting bacteria/fungal spores and pollen crap. When there's wind the particulates can get up from 500 all the way to 65,000+ g/m in a dust storm. We evolved in those scenarios, we can handle it. Tire particulates can be from 0.3 to 15 ug/m^3 in the worst possible traffic scenario -- you're leaning over the back of a truck on a busy hig
Re: (Score:2)
correction: all air particulate numbers are in ug/m^3 not g (which would be nuts). Point still stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting to remove unintentional and incorrect moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, bottom line -- lung cancer rates have decreased and is low. Cancer rates themselves age-adjusted are low compared to eras with less tire traffic https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov] .. like 100x higher: https://www.nike.com/a/how-oft... [nike.com] . Shoes wear down about 1mm every six months .. a tire about half that and most of it no
And besides, as a cancer-fearing hypochondriac, I don't want walkable cities. I mean, what about the particulates from shoe soles? Shoe soles have a much higher erosion rate than tires
Re: (Score:2)
You think lung cancer is even real? It's a myth concocted by people with a hatred of our great American industries. Just eat some ivermectin, you'll be fine.
Re:Donâ(TM)t smoke (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you didn't read very carefully. They found a marker that appears 5 years before a diagnosis and also part of the mechanism of smoking and other things causing lung cancer AND potentially how to interrupt it. That's a good bit more than simply finding a well known correlation.
absolute death toll vs relative death toll (Score:1)
lung cancer "kills more people worldwide than any other cancer."
You say this like it's a bad thing. Far more useful is "how many people does lung cancer kill each year."
If it kills 100 people worldwide each year but all other kinds of cancer kill 99 or fewer each, then "meh" or maybe even "wow, that's great news, now we can focus our death-prevention efforts on other causes of death."
Re:absolute death toll vs relative death toll (Score:4, Informative)
Seems like if you were sure of how that came out, you'd have gone and looked it up and had a stronger comment.
Supposedly it's as many as "breast, pancreatic, and prostate cancer combined." https://www.cancer.org/content... [cancer.org]