Sentences with phrase «reduce lung cancer mortality»

They estimate that this screening strategy would reduce lung cancer mortality by 9.05 % compared to no screening, with an incremental cost - effectiveness ratio of $ 41,136 Canadian dollars per life - year gained.

Not exact matches

Risk assessments estimate that lowering occupational exposure limits from the current to the proposed standard will reduce silicosis and lung cancer mortality to approximately one - half of the rates predicted under the current standard.

Now, on Nov. 5, a news story likened those findings to the results of a large trial by the National Cancer Institute, which showed that CT scans reduced mortality rates among the highest - risk lung cancer patients by 20 peCancer Institute, which showed that CT scans reduced mortality rates among the highest - risk lung cancer patients by 20 pecancer patients by 20 percent.

The biological mechanisms by which toxins in tobacco smoke cause lung cancer are complex and still not completely understood, but carcinogens in tobacco smoke may not only act as genetic inducers but also act to promote progression of the disease.6 7 As well as potentially reducing the risk of cancer related morbidity and mortality, quitting smoking at diagnosis could reduce overall mortality, as smoking cessation reduces mortality from other diseases such as heart disease, stroke, and chronic obstructive airways disease.8 9

It can pick up early lung cancers and can reduce mortality from lung cancer by about 20 %, but a large number of the early lesions that are seen probably never would go on to being lethal cancer and being able to discriminate between those that will cause trouble and those that won't make a huge difference in cancer therapy.

Moreover, the paper gets its history wrong when it notes that «Total cancer mortality rates did not decline until 1990, 25 years after the identification of the effect of smoking on lung and other cancers...» Well, actually, it was more like 50 years, because the earliest studies to connect smoking and lung cancer were conducted not by NIH - funded scientists but by Nazi scientists in the run - up to World War II.4 By the logic of the PNAS paper, then, ought we to be crediting the Nazi health science agenda with whatever progress has been made on reducing lung cancer, rather than the incredibly protracted and difficult public health campaign (that, for the most part, NIH had nothing to do with) aimed at getting people to cut down on smoking?