Sunday, March 3, 2019
Nursing Research Article
Lung genus Cancer has been named the abet leading killer of American women second to heart dis fix. It is estimated that 20% of deaths among women occur from lung genus Cancer (medinet.com). According to the American crabby person society, lung malignant neoplastic disease accounts for up to 28 % of mortality rates among men. The happen factors associated to lung genus Cancer be sens of cigarettes, marijuana, exposure to talcum and hot petroles and asbestos and so on. These compounds are said to trigger growth of malignant cells thus causing genus Cancer (medinet.com).genus Melissa Conrad Stoppler, MD a board certified Anatomic diagnostician based in US in her denomination lung genus Cancer (medicine Net.com) points protrude that lung genus Cancer is a life threatening cancer that spreads very devalued to other parts of the body and is a very difficult cancer to treat. She clears up the myth that lung cancer only occurs among smokers. Non-smokers are also given over to developing lung cancer and of the 170,000 lung cancer deaths in America, 10% of them are non-smokers.Of these deaths among non-smokers, not all the cases can be traced to any identifiable risk factors besides dominantly, unresisting smoking can be underpinned to be the major causal factor for lung cancer among non-smokers. Melissa also tries to shed light or the group that is intimately prone to suffer from lung cancer. She purports that smokers, Asbestos workers, the elderly, passive smokers, people assailable to workplace chemicals and residents of air pollution prone zones.According to the American cancer society, 70% of people suffering from cancer are elderly enunciate over 65 years and only 3% under 45 years. Melissa points fall extinct that in the 1930, lung cancer was a rarefied disease however, with the rise of tobacco smoking and pollution, the disease cases have developmentd unprecedented. The get along of deaths among tobacco smokers is highest among ciga rette smoker as opposed to cigar and pipe smokers.The risk getting lung cancer tho compounds with each increase of cigarette smoked. delimitate in aesculapian terms as pack-years (the come in to packs of cigarette smoked per day in a year), Melissa suggest that the high the number of pack years, the higher the risk of developing lung cancer. To be precise she elaborates that out of seven people who smoke 2 to 3 packs of cigarettes in a day, one will die of lung cancer. (medicineNet.com).This is because cigarette contains carcinogenic compounds that trigger unnatural cell growth in the lungs and thus cancer. It then seems that lung cancer is a disease for smokers, or at least that is according to common misconceptions. Melissa in her article submits that research findings indicates people who share living length or work stations have a 24% higher chance of developing cancer as evidence by 3000 lung cancer deaths pinned to passive smoking.Further, she brings to mind that other risk factors associated with lung cancer are rare but combined with smoking, (passive or active) the risk of developing cancer is further compounded. Evidence shows that Asbestos workers who smoke had a 50 to 90 time fortuity of developing lung cancer in preference to the five times hap accrued to non-smokers. The case is the same for workers exposed to radon gas and radioactive compounds.Although there is insufficient evidence to support claims that genetic predisposition increase individuals vulnerability to developing lung cancer, the porta cannot be totally ignored. Residents of air-polluted zones have contributed 1% of all lung cancer cases and clearly, cigarette smoking or passive smoking complicates the problem. The US government has paid noteworthy attention to the increase of lung cancer deaths among Americans.According to the National cancer institute, 213,389 new cases of lung cancer cases have so far been reported and out of those cases, 160,390 deaths have occurred in 2007 alone. The magnitude of cancer problem is profound leading the government to respond investing a handsome chunk of money to cancer research each year.The pen of the article is a easily-educated pathologist and she uses a lot of medical jargon in her article. However, she makes efforts of clearly explaining important terms so that her auditory sense can understand. Her piece is well researched and developed giving it a quiet flow. She starts from the basics and develops the topics to complex aspects.For instance, definition of lung cancer, commonality of the disease, causes, types of cancer, signs and symptoms, how it is diagnosed, handling options, prognosis and bar. However, for a nonprofessional some of the content may be confusing or too technical to understand. Although she does try to explain in simple language, it is practicable to get lost in the maze of medical terminology and instruction overload. The controversy does seem logical, supported by statistics fr om reliable sources. She also builds her article from previous medical researches and from her own professional experience.The authors argument regarding smoking and its role in increasing risk of developing cancer among cancer prone population is well supported. She mentions the various causal factors of lung cancer and relates them to smoking. For instance, the fact that 12% of lung cancer deaths are attributable to radon gas exposure and concomitant smoking bringing the number to up to 15,000deaths per year.I believe this article is most appropriate to Melissas laughingstock audience because it rolls out facts supported by statistics which I think makes the article believable and reliable. It is unlikely that an individual, who smokes or is exposed to the risk factors mentioned in the article, would give in the recommendations lightly. Moreover, by and by reading her article, misconceptions about passive smoking are cleared. The denomination that evoked a strong response in m e is prognosis of lung cancer. expectation of lung cancer refers to the chance of recovery from lung cancer. Melissa sheds light on the possibility of recovery among lung cancer patients. She submits that recovery is dependant on the localization and sizing of tumor type of cancer and overall health status of the patient. This gets me sentiment because I always thought cancer was the same. She fills in the readers on the cardinal types of lung cancers, which are the i.e. small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).SCLC is the most aggressive and survival time ranges from about 4 to 6 months after diagnosis, if untreated. However, the SCLC is the most responsive to radiation and chemotherapy. At this point, I feel enlightened. Further, she points out treatments like surgical removal of tumors and local chemotherapy as the most impressive treatment. Although there is, only 5%-10% chances of survival if lung cancer is untreated, good treatment can prolong ca ncer patient with SCLC types of lung cancer, to up to 5 times more than the untreated cases.Overall I think the article is well researched and accurate and gives a clear take home message i.e. prevention is better than cure since prognosis of lung cancer is poor compared to other cancers. Thus, smokers and passive smokers are best advised to avoid cigarette in order to minimize susceptibility to lung cancer.ReferencesConrad M. S ed. Marks, J.W. Lung Cancer. Available athttp//www.medicinenet.com/lung_cancer/page7.htmAccessed on kinsfolk 18, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.