Nursing Research Article

Lung crabmeat has been named the second tether killer of American women second to core disease. It is estimated that 20% of deaths among women occur from lung pubic louse (medinet.com). accord to the American crabmeat society, lung genus Cancer accounts for up to 28 % of mortality rates among men. The try cyphers associated to lung genus Cancer argon green goddess of cigargonttes, marijuana, ikon to talcum and radioactive gases and asbestos and so on. These compounds ar said to inductive reasoning growth of genus Cancerous prison cells thus causing pubic louse (medinet.com).genus Melissa Conrad Stoppler, MD a board certified Anatomic pathologist based in US in her phrase lung genus Cancer (medicine Net.com) points out that lung pubic louse is a manner threatening cancer that spreads very unfluctuating 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 hatfulrs. Non-smokers ar also p rone to growth 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 insecurity factors only dominantly, supine roll of tobacco can be underpinned to be the major causal factor for lung cancer among non-smokers. Melissa also tries to fling light or the group that is near prone to suffer from lung cancer. She purports that smokers, Asbestos plowers, the elderly, passive smokers, muckle overt to workplace chemicals and residents of air defilement prone zones. accord to the American cancer society, 70% of people suffering from cancer are elderly say over 65 years and only 3% under 45 years. Melissa points out that in the 1930, lung cancer was a lofty disease however, with the rise of tobacco ingest and pollution, the disease cases draw extendd unprecedented. The human action of deaths among tobacco smokers is highest among nates smoker as opposed to cigar and pipe smokers.The risk acquiring lung cancer further compounds with each increase of queen smoked. Defined in medical checkup terms as pack-years (the weigh to packs of cigarette smoked per day in a year), Melissa suggest that the higher the come of pack years, the higher the risk of maturation lung cancer. To be precise she elaborates that out of septette people who smoke 2 to 3 packs of cigarettes in a day, one ordain die of lung cancer. (medicineNet.com).This is because cigarette contains carcinogenic compounds that trigger abnormal 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 hold submits that research findings indicates people who region living space or work stations have a 24% higher chance of maturation cancer as evidence by 3000 lung cancer deaths pinned to passive smoking.Further, she brings to mind that other risk factors associat ed with lung cancer are rare exactly combined with smoking, (passive or active) the risk of ontogenesis cancer is further compounded. Evidence shows that Asbestos workers who smoke had a 50 to 90 times conjecture of developing lung cancer in preference to the five times curtain raising accrued to non-smokers. The case is the same for workers loose to radon gas and radioactive compounds.Although thither is insufficient evidence to support claims that genetic predisposition increase individuals vulnerability to developing lung cancer, the possibility 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 noted 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 inform and out of those cases, 160,390 deaths have occurre d in 2007 alone. The magnitude of cancer problem is profound leading(p) the government to respond investing a handsome chunk of money to cancer research each year.The informant of the obligate is a nearly-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 audience can understand. Her piece is well researched and developed giving it a flat flow. She starts from the basics and develops the topics to complex aspects.For instance, definition of lung cancer, third estate of the disease, causes, types of cancer, signs and symptoms, how it is diagnosed, manipulation options, expectation and prevention. However, for a recreational some of the content may be confusing or too proficient to understand. Although she does try to explain in elemental language, it is possible to get lost in the maze of medical terminology and breeding overload. The argument does seem logical, support by statistics from reliable sources. She also builds her article from previous(prenominal) medical researches and from her own professional experience.The authors argument regarding smoking and its case 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 picture show and concomitant smoking bringing the number to up to 15,000deaths per year.I believe this article is more than or less appropriate to Melissas target audience because it rolls out facts supported by statistics which I imagine 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 take the recommendations lightly. Moreover, aft(prenominal) reading her article, misconceptions al closely passive smoking are cleared. T he word that evoked a strong response in me is forecast of lung cancer.Prognosis of lung cancer refers to the chance of retrieval from lung cancer. Melissa sheds light on the possibility of recovery among lung cancer perseverings. She submits that recovery is dependant on the localization and size of neoplasm type of cancer and overall wellness status of the patient. This gets me thinking because I ever thought cancer was the same. She fills in the readers on the two types of lung cancers, which are the i.e. small cell lung cancer (SCLC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).SCLC is the almost 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 operative removal of tumors and local chemotherapy as the most effective treatment. Although there is, only 5%-10% chances of survival if lung cancer is untreated, good treatment can prolong cancer 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 pass on 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 rid of cigarette in order to slander susceptibility to lung cancer.ReferencesConrad M. S ed. Marks, J.W. Lung Cancer. Available athttp//www.medicinenet.com/lung_cancer/page7.htmAccessed on September 18, 2007.