Predicting and maybe preventing lung cancer

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

Lung cancer kills more people worldwide than any other cancer. My mother, a nonsmoker with a healthy lifestyle, died of lung cancer.

This article describes a blood test which identified a set of proteins in the blood that accurately predict lung cancers more than five years before diagnosis.

These proteins are linked to inflammation. The signature was increased in people who later developed lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and pulmonary fibrosis, pointing to a common inflammatory environment upstream of all three diseases.

A specific anti-inflammatory drug was able to prevent lung cancer in about half of the treated group.

Two important takeaways:

  1. Cancer is caused by many factors. Inflammation is an important factor in promoting cancer.

  2. If the protein pre-lung cancer signature is present in a non-smoker the cancer could be cut off at the pass…maybe. But I have to say that nonsmokers don’t expect to get lung cancer (even if they have a smoking spouse) so they would be unlikely to get the test.

  3. A new anti-inflammatory cancer-preventing drug could be a blockbuster. The one in the study has a lot of side effects but surely medicinal chemists are hard at work modifying it to increase the potency and reduce the toxicity.

  4. It’s less effort to go for a spiral CT scan for a person at high risk of lung cancer (like DH who got one last week, covered by Medicare) compared with an expensive blood test. I would anticipate the market for the anti-inflammatory to be coupled with patients who already have lung cancer and are under treatment with chemotherapy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/04/well/lung-cancer-prevention.html

Inflammation is part of the root cause of many dangerous illnesses. The best way to tamp down inflammation is the usual good advice of whole foods diet with plenty of antioxidant veggies and fruits, oily fish, sleep and exercise. And take out your tape measure – a fat gut acts as an active inflammatory organ, constantly secreting a steady stream of pro-inflammatory cytokines into the bloodstream.

Wendy

5 Likes
2

The major cause of lung cancer is smoking. But next in line is particle pollution from burning of fossil fuels, coal and oil.

Particle Pollution

Particle pollution refers to a mix of very tiny solid and liquid particles that are in the air we breathe. Evidence shows that particle pollution—like that coming from that exhaust smoke—increases the risk of lung cancer.

6. Air pollution

Outdoor air pollution and particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution were classified as Group 1 human carcinogens by IARC in 2013 based on sufficient evidence from human and experimental animal studies, as well as mechanistic evidence93. Several large-scale cohort studies with data on confounding variables (i.e., cigarette smoking) provided strong evidence of a positive link between ambient air pollution and lung cancer incidence and mortality94, 95, 96. A meta-analysis reported a statistically significant increased risk of lung cancer incidence in each 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 (RR = 1.09, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.14)97. A recently updated meta-analysis including 20 cohort studies reported an even greater risk of lung cancer associated with PM2.598. Although there was no significant heterogeneity in findings across studies where either fixed site monitoring or model-based approaches for exposure assessment were used, most of these studies were conducted in North America and Europe, where ambient exposure is lower; to date, very few studies have been conducted in Asia and other parts of the world with higher known exposure levels99, 100, 101, 102, 103. Several recent large epidemiologic studies also support an adverse effect of PM2.5 and PM10 on lung cancer risk104, 105, 106, 107, although two studies showed no clear association with PM due to lack of controlling for cigarette smoking108 and short follow-up time109.

In addition to PM, studies on nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a marker of traffic-related air pollution, suggested an increased risk of lung cancer associated with increasing exposure to NO2. These studies were summarized in two meta-analyses110,111. Several recent large epidemiologic studies provided inconsistent results, with some studies supporting an increased risk of lung cancer associated with exposure to NO2104,112, and others showing no association106,109,113. A recent study among postmenopausal never-smoker women reported an increased risk of lung cancer among those residing <50 m from primary highways, suggesting that other traffic-related indicators including ultrafine particles, particle-bound polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAHs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) might contribute to an increased risk of lung cancer113. The few studies that investigated O3 and lung cancer risk yielded inconsistent results104,106,114.

Household burning of coal and biomass fuel (primarily wood) has been classified as Group 1 and Group 2A human carcinogens for lung cancer, respectively115. Combustion of solid fuels is also a major contributor to indoor and outdoor air pollution, particularly in “developing countries” including China116. Epidemiologic studies conducted in China117,118, North America, and Europe115 gave compelling evidence to support the relationship between coal combustion and risk of lung cancer. An updated review of epidemiologic studies reported a summarized OR of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.37) for lung cancer associated with biomass for cooking and/or heating, and a higher risk among women in “developing countries” compared with “developed countries”, which was consistent with higher exposure among the former119. Exposure levels of indoor air pollution from combustion of solid fuels for cooking and heating are largely influenced by the type and quality of fuels, the type and condition of stoves, the type of ventilation and housing, the specific tasks and skill of the stove operator, and weather conditions115. Better exposure assessment is warranted to elucidate exposure-response relationship between solid fuels and lung cancer risk.

A limited number of studies have investigated air pollution and risk of lung cancer by histologic subtypes. A meta-analysis reported a stronger association of adenocarcinoma with PM2.5 (RR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.83 per 10 ÎĽg/m3) based on three studies, and with PM10 (RR = 1.29, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.63 per 10 ÎĽg/m3) based on two studies97. Some - but not all - subsequent studies supported a stronger association between PM2.5120,121, PM10122, and adenocarcinoma123. Further studies of the relationship between air pollution and lung cancer histologic subtypes are needed.

Evidence of the link between different components of PM and risk of lung cancer is also limited97,124. A study using PM2.5 oxidative burden, the product of PM2.5 mass, and oxidative potential, which is the ability of regional filter extracts to deplete antioxidants glutathione or ascorbate in a synthetic respiratory tract lining fluid, reported a significantly increased risk of lung cancer mortality associated with glutathione-related, but not ascorbate-related, PM2.5 oxidative burden125. Several other studies reported a similar adverse association between various PM2.5 components and lung cancer risk126, 127, 128. Several PM components including nickel, chromium, cadmium, and silica dust, as well as diesel engine exhaust have been classified as lung cancer carcinogens by IARC based on sufficient evidence in humans129,130.

Very few studies have examined the combined effects of air pollution, cigarette smoking, and other lifestyle factors. The American Cancer Society Cancer Prevention Study II (ACS CPS-II) suggested a greater risk of lung cancer mortality among those with PM2.5 and cigarette smoking exposures than what was expected from the sum of their individual effects131. European cohort studies found no interaction between ambient PM2.5 or PM10 concentrations and fruit consumption in relation to lung cancer risk95. Studying the interactions of various lifestyle factors with air pollution in lung cancer risk has important public health implications. Future longitudinal studies with detailed information on confounding factors and modifiable lifestyle factors are needed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667005422000667

4 Likes
3

Wendy, I’m going to pick a nit, I hope you don’t mind. The above statement is correct but what follows has a nit…

Inflammation is an intermediary cause. Next you talk about the root causes…

So, the root cause is more often than not one’s lifestyle. Doctors and drugs can lower inflammation but lifestyle is more often than not the ROOT cause. Doctors cannot change our lifestyles, only we can do that.

The macroeconomic impact is that by living healthy we cut medical expenses in addition to a more enjoyable life.

The Captain

o o o o o o o

A conversation with Google AI:

Tell me how you’d like to proceed so I can help you further!

I don’t need help, I just wanted to know the definition of “nit.”

Understood! I am glad the definitions were helpful.

Have a wonderful day ahead!

2 Likes
4

This is an interesting find, @WendyBG …thanks (I think…another rabbit hole for me to scamper down if I’m not careful)

Anecdotally, the two folk who I know personally and who developed lung cancer …at quite a young age (late 40s), come to that …were both non smokers, in non smoking households, and who didn’t work in industries where they were exposed to carcinogenic agents …as much as you can tell. Not fat. Not sedentary. Already a big step up from the norm WRT Righteous Living™ and healthy lifestyles.

Usual caveat of mine…I know enough on this topic to know I might be wrong (so not due a worthwhile opinion…and, for sure, not going to confirm the fact by exposing myself to the opinions Google AI overview would like to spew all over the thread :wink:)

Here’s one opinion all my own. Although 5 years earlier diagnosis doesn’t sound like much as a screening tool, it seems to me that it’s a big step towards teasing out the the folk who have a fundamental genetic predisposition and more likely to be unable to prevent the onset by the Usual Suspects on the rap sheet of Healthy Lifestyle Choices. A bit like the more advanced lipid testing etc in folk who’re exemplars of good custodianship of their bodies but cannot beat the genetic predisposition to ASCVD without pharmaceutical intervention.

1 Like
5

After smoking, radon exposure is considered the second most common cause of lung cancer in the United States. It is usually suspected when someone who has never smoked or lived around anyone who smokes is diagnosed with lung cancer…

The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that radon exposure causes approximately 21,000 lung cancer deaths per year in the United States. About 2,900 of those deaths occur among people who have never smoked.

DB2

3 Likes
6

I watched an Amish webcast about how modern American homes don’t breathe. I didn’t think about posting it.

escapes outside only happens if your home breathes! The Amish podcast is worth watching! Search:

and click “Videos”

The Captain

1 Like
7

Since we first came to the US in 1986, we’ve moved (sold and bought a home) twice…with the daughter’s moves and home purchases adding another two to the sum total. Each time a radon check was required for the sales … and radon mitigation necessary twice. I got to wondering how recently this has been noticed/become a requirement, or if our experience has been unusual (seeing as radon in homes seems to be a surprise) Not that recently…and its not just us, apparently.

The Story of How Radon was Discovered in Homes | The BrickKicker The Story of How Radon was Discovered in Homes | The BrickKicker

1 Like
8

OK, my turn to pick that nit.

One should never use AI for something www.dictionary.com or another non-AI source could provide.

I am not one of those that screams at the internet over “all the water” or “all the theft” related to AI usage but it is wasteful for all parties to use it for something so trivial.

2 Likes
9

Radon is heavy and usually accumulates in low spaces like basements. Ventilation is the best solution. Remediation is exactly that—continuous ventilation systems to collect and expel radon.

2 Likes
10

AFAIK, very few states (if any) require radon testing. A majority require radon disclosure; you have to tell the buyer if you know about elevated radon in the home.

DB2

11

That’s as maybe. However, the realtors for the buyers in the states we sold in (NY and MA) had it as something that they wanted. That was enough of a requirement for us…seeing as selling was higher on our agenda than arguing the toss.

Point was, though, the possibility of high radon levels in homes isn’t an unknown phenomenon. At least, as far as realtors are concerned.

12

I 100% agree. A simple way for this to work is that the UI for the Chatbot should be able to have a few “interceptor” keywords that have defaults, but the user can override with some settings, that automatically redirect when you type (or say) something like “define abc” or “where is abc” or “who is abc”

These queries should go to a dictionary, maps, wikipedia, etc.

Mike

13

GoogleAI is free. Google can solve the problem by charging for it.

The Captain