If lung cancer kills more people in the United States than any other cancer, why is it the biggest loser in cancer funding?

Usually the thing that panics people the most gets more attention. That’s why crime/guns get more attention than cars, even though cars hurt more people. Or raping children gets more attention than climate change, even though climate change is a much bigger threat to humanity.

Why? Probably because we’re evolved to be concerned about immediate threats, not far-off ones. Breast cancer is easier to treat and maims people who get it. Lung cancer is harder to treat and probably kills most people who get it. And, getting lung cancer is perceived to be the victim’s fault, often enough (e.g., because of smoking).

Without really knowing, and thus only acting on conjecture, it is probably because there is no real political constituency large enough to pressure politicians and charities to make it a priority. When people talk about breast cancer, I figure all women feel connected to the cause even if they have never had the disease. Plus, other forms of cancer have methods for early detection as well, so it seems logical to put resources there, since advanced disease is often fatal in any case. Plus, as @bolwerk says, there is a sort of stigma attached to it, since it is associated often enough with smoking.

Probably the same reason breast cancer gets more attention and people are more afraid of it than heart disease, even though 1 in 3 people get heart disease, and 1 in 9 get breast cancer. Breast cancer had more people pushing the cause. Especially Komen, she did an amazing job.

Lung cancer is also probably viewed as preventable, since most people think it is related to smoking. It is often related to cancer, but there are many cases of nonsmokers lung cancer too.

Because people get blamed for getting lung cancer. “Does she smoke?”

People have the mistaken notion that all lung cancer victims are smokers, which is wrong, wrong, wrong.

All successful causes have a strong, charismatic leader.

@marinelife Is right, something like 15–20% of all lung cancers occur in non-smokers, and there seems to be a gene that enhances the risk as is true of certain other cancers.
I just watched a documentary on the life of Betty Davis last night. That woman chain smoked and drank like a fish for over 60 years only to die of breast cancer at age 83. One just never knows and smoking is NOT always a factoring factor.

My mother smoked for years and years and died of diabetes, and she was a tiny, petite woman, not obese. She also drank the hard stuff and in the end it her death was completely unrelated to her smoking habit.

So, follow-up question: if you discount smokers, would lung cancer still be the #1 cancer? And would that suggest that it deserves more research attention?

Going by @Coloma‘s figure it doesn’t seem likely. Also, more research may not be especially necessary since we know the cause and treatments of lung cancer already. In the future, hopefully stem cell treatment will make lung replacement more convenient for smokers, but until then reversing lung cancer for smokers doesn’t seem like a very convenient way to spend scarce research funds.

You can’t just judge where money should go by statistical occurrence alone. You also have to consider possibilities. For instance, HIV is controlled largely as well is it is by the huge amount of money spent on awareness, treatment, and prevention.

It’s self inflicted.

@Coloma My mother smoked for years and years and died of diabetes, and she was a tiny, petite woman, not obese This description fits my mom too.

Dana Reeves, actress, singer and wife of Christopher Reeves, a life long non-smoker, died of lung cancer, which helped bring the issue to light.

@cheebdragon Then how do you explain those who have never smoked or the cause of second hand smoke?

Maybe because it is considered preventable. Only 1 case out of 20 is in a nonsmoker.
I recently spent some time looking up the numbers. Refereces are in another question.
19 cases out of 20 are in people who smoke. The odds of a smoker getting lung cancer is 1 in 250. The odds of a nonsmoker getting cancer are about 1 in 4500.
Once diagnosed, half of all cancer patients will be dead within a year.

@bolwerk I think the research money for lung cancer needs to go towards early detection somehow. Most lung cancers are found when it is too late for a possible cure or treatment.

MONEY.

By the way, they can tell by the cell of the cancer if it is caused by smoking or not. It isn’t just a statistic about nonsmokers getting lung cancer.

I didn’t know that, @JLeslie. That is very interesting. I know modern medicine is very, very advanced. It is like everything has jumped by leaps and bounds in the past decade or more. They can tell whether or not lung cancer is caused by smoking. Wow. You learn something new everyday.

My nephew has cancer. He smokes and his doctors have told him it wouldn’t matter if he smoked twice as much as he does now, it has nothing to do with his type of cancer.

@bkcunningham They have been identify it to some extent for at least 25, or at least that is when my mom first told me (she worked at the national cancer institute, but she is not a medical professional) I don’t know how specific it is. I think there is non-small call lung cancer, and large cell lung cancer, something like that? I am not very well versed on cancers.

@JLeslie The two types are non-small cell and small cell. Small cell spreads aggressively and occurs almost exclusively in current or former smokers. About 15% of all lung cancer cases are small-cell lung cancer. For most patients with non-small cell lung cancer, current treatments do not cure the cancer.

@jonsblond, when they collect the data for those statistics, I wonder what they consider a “former smoker?” What would be the threshold for that… you are considered a former smoker if you smoked one cigarette in your life? Smoked half a pack for a year? More than a pack a day for at least 2 years? I just wonder.

I think it’s two things. The mistaken impression that lung cancer is always a self-inflicted wound and the not inconsiderable lobbying clout of an industry that still pours into controlling congress and the President. It’s down a bit since the industry finally lost its long junk-science, disinformation and influence buying fight to avoid labeling cigarettes as dangerous and addictive, but Big Tobacco still delivers carload lots of cash to Washington K Street Lobbying forms and politician’s reelection campaigns. Industries driven by profit don’t invest upwards of $150 million a year with no expectation of any return on the investment.

Lung cancer isn’t something Big Tobacco wants us talking about. Acquiring a crop of fresh new customers every year is a vital, survival concern for an industry whose products kill an estimated 500,000 people annually who use those products exactly as directed.

Perhaps it is all about the squeaky wheel gets the oil. After all, breast cancer research gets far more funding than prostate cancer despite similar numbers of death casualties. You see breast cancer stickers and signs all over but how many times have your seen a prostate awareness sign?

@gondwanalon How many people want to call attention to their boobs vs. how many are anxious to show off their prostate. Ever heard of a man getting a prostate enlargement?

@ETpro Good one but this is really no laughing matter. A friend of mine died of prostrate cancer earlier this year. He didn’t go to see a doctor until his prostrate was so big that he could hardly urinate. Anyway for years now people are screaming bloody murder about breast cancer (that by the way also kills a few hundred of men a year). That is why I think that so much money is being funneled into research to cure breast cancer. Meanwhile over 32000 men are predicted to die this year from prostrate cancer and no one seems to be to concerned about that do they. Shoot you even made a joke about it.

@gondwanalon I was not trying to minimize the concern. If anyone tool it that way, that was not my intent. Don’t misunderstand humor. Sometimes it is the most powerful communication method available to get people to look at what’s stupid in our society. That was the intent of this joke.

I am saying that people hold the breasts and the prostate in very different regard. Thus, even of prostate cancer is the stealth killer, they prefer to ignore it. My humor was aimed at calling them out, not signing off on their lack of concern.

@jonsblond Thanks for that information.

@jonsblond, I was just re-reading the blog you posted in the original question. I was reading through the numerous comments and came to one that suggested reading an article from the New Yorker magazine. I hope you get a chance to read the piece. It is so well written and very informative. It helps you understand the answer to your question a little better. Enjoy your Sunday.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_groopman

Thank you for pointing that out to me @bkcunningham. It was very interesting article. Also, you have me wondering what time frame is used when considering a person to be a former smoker. My oncologist wasn’t too concerned when he asked me if I had smoked and I told him my history. I haven’t smoked for over 9 years now, and when I did smoke it was on and off for about 15 years. I was never a pack a day smoker, but I grew up in a household with a mom who smoked a pack a day. The number of pack-years is used in determining which people are more at risk for lung cancer.

I don’t think the reason lung cancer is the biggest loser in cancer research funding is because some feel that it is self-inflicted. Smoking causes many other cancers, not just lung cancer. Smoking can cause cancer almost anywhere in the body. Smoking causes cancer of the mouth, nose, throat, voicebox (larynx), esophagus, bladder, kidney, pancreas, cervix, stomach, blood, and bone marrow (acute myeloid leukemia). source

@ETpro Lung cancer isn’t something Big Tobacco wants us talking about. That makes the most sense to me. :(

I just wanted to thank everyone here for your thoughts and opinions. Like @gondwanalon, this is a topic that hits very close to home and it is very frustrating.