David Rose
Win tickets to the Visa London 2012 Party
Smokers could be shown their risk of developing lung cancer by using a new genetic test, researchers say.
Cigarette smoking is the cause of nearly all lung cancers. The risk increases with the number and type of cigarettes smoked.
Up to 15 per cent of smokers develop the disease, which scientists believe could be indicated by patterns of gene activity in the lungs.
They have identified an 80-gene biomarker that could distinguish between smokers with and without lung cancer.
Lung cancer is the deadliest form of cancer in Britain, killing 92 people a day on average. It is often not discovered until a late stage. Nine out of ten victims contract it through active or passive smoking.
The proposed test suggests a way of letting smokers know that they are not expected to suffer lung cancer because of their habit.
Identifying at an early stage which smokers are likely to develop cancer and which are not could save many lives, as the disease kills up to 85 per cent of its victims within five years.
But smoking has many other harmful effects. Chiefly, it greatly increases the risk of heart disease, and can trigger lung conditions such as emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
The new study involved the gene-profiling of 129 current and former smokers who had undergone normal lung examination tests for suspected cancer. The patients were monitored until they were either given the “all clear”, or a definite diagnosis of lung cancer.
A particular pattern of activity involving 80 genes was found in 90 per cent of the patients in whom the disease was confirmed.
In comparison, routine bronchoscopy tests picked up 35 per cent of patients who eventually developed cancer.
The scientists, led by Avrum Spira, from Boston University in the US, believe that the gene test could provide an earlier warning of lung cancer than standard procedures.
The researchers write in the journal Nature Medicine: “Our biomarker might be useful as a screening tool for lung cancer among healthy smokers.”
But a spokeswoman for Ash, the public health charity, said yesterday that smokers were at risk from a number of other cancers. “Smoking accounts for one third of all cancer cases and does irreparable damage to the respiratory and immune systems. While this test might show the signs of lung cancer it should not be taken as an indication for people to carry on smoking because they are still at risk of causing illness to themselves, and to others through the secondhand effects of their smoke.”
Follow our three athletes' progress in their preparations for the London Triathlon, and pick up training tips and more
Enjoy screenings of all the classic films you love, plus take advantage of two-for-one tickets
We explore leisure activities that are safe and suitable for all of the family
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles

A treasure trove of baubles, booty and stylish quests

Dubrovnik, the Dalmatian Coast and Montenegro

X/2000
£46,700
08/2008
£56,850
2008
£75,990
Great car insurance deals online
MI6
London
To £150k basic / £200k+ OTE
RM
Oxfordshire
£
Six Figure Package
Experian
Nottingham
circa £70k
Central Office of Information
London
Great Dubai Investment Opportunities
from £89,950
Beautiful Gardens w/ stunning Thames Views
Studios £33K, 1 Beds £60K, 2 beds £79K
Mortgages, bank acc & money transfers to help you buy abroad
on this Once in a Lifetime 7 night Cruise
£POA
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
A Journey of a Lifetime with The Captain’s Choice Tour
£10,475
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Well it's a start ASH spokesman isn't it. Of course nothing is good enough for ASH anyway.
It may go a long way to explain way the oldest people EVER lived were smokers would it not.
Glad I do not waste my donations anymore on CRUK or Foundations, they have held up true science for how many years with this vendetta against smokers.
Shame the obscene amount of money that has been thrown at this, was not put to better use.
freedom2choose.co.uk for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike.
Ventilation and non-smoking venues should have been the way forward.
Get rid of the Dictators, smoke haters and money wasters.
Mandy, Cambs, UK
The ASH assertion that "Smoking accounts for one third of all cancer cases......" is as ludicrous as making the opposite claim: "Non-smoking accounts for the other two thirds...." There is no one single cause of any medical condition.
At last we are getting "science" to come clean on one issue......(which was mooted 30 years ago) that the state of one's genes is one of the main precursors in cancer development. If it were smoking, then EVERY smoker would die of "smoking related" causes, but the fact is, very few do
Donal McCarthy, Ireland, Ireland
ASH says that smoking accounts for one third of all cancer cases. I would like to know how they reach this figure. Is it the case that if a non smoker and a smoker are both diagnosed with the same type of cancer smoking is attributed to the smoker's cancer? If so, then it is misleading.unless it has been established that the smoker's and non smoker's cancer did not have the same cause and that the smoker's cancer was not caused by another factor. I would also like to point out that research has failed to show any real risk of secondhand smoke.
J Stewart, Stockton, Cleveland