陆军特色医学中心肿瘤科 陈滑维 近年来，随着医学影像检查设备的进步与环境污染等因素，肺结节检出率逐年上升。哪些人群需重点筛 查？又该如何科学看待辐射、漏诊与过度检查的顾虑？ 如何降低肺癌死亡率 据美国国家肺癌筛查试验（NLST）对5.3万名55~74岁高危吸烟者的研究显示，每年进行低剂量螺旋CT 筛查者，其肺癌死亡率比每年拍普通胸片的降低20%；在吸烟更重、烟龄更长的"极高危人群"中，降幅 可达60%。国内研究也显示，我国40岁以上高危人群每年进行1次低剂量螺旋CT筛查，可使早期肺癌检 出率提高3倍，晚期肺癌比例下降近半。 早期肺癌经微创手术切除后，患者5年生存率可达80%~90%，多能恢复正常生活。而晚期肺癌5年生存 率不足10%，治疗痛苦且费用高昂。因此，降低肺癌死亡率的关键在于早检查、早发现、早治疗。 哪些人需要重点筛查 《中国肺癌筛查与早诊早治指南（2021）》建议40岁以上且符合以下任一条件者，每年进行1次低剂量 螺旋CT筛查：吸烟或曾有吸烟史；长期接触粉尘、苯、甲醛等致癌物（含常处于二手烟环境中）；患 有慢阻肺、肺结核、肺纤维化等肺部基础病，或曾发现直径≥5mm的肺结节；有癌症家族史者。以上高 危 ...

Group 1 - The core concept of the article revolves around the rising popularity of a product called "liquid mask," a nasal spray that claims to block viruses and bacteria, with some products reportedly selling over 1 million bottles annually during the peak season for respiratory infections [1][2]. - The product is marketed as creating a physical barrier in the nasal cavity to isolate pathogens and allergens, with claims of a 99.9% blockage rate [1][5]. Group 2 - Medical experts express skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the "liquid mask," highlighting that it has not undergone clinical validation and lacks supporting research data for its protective claims [6]. - The nasal cavity's complex structure makes it difficult for the "liquid mask" to provide comprehensive coverage, leaving areas unprotected and potentially vulnerable to infection [6]. - The durability of the protective film created by the "liquid mask" is questioned, as everyday actions like nose-picking or sneezing can compromise its effectiveness [6]. Group 3 - The article warns against exaggerated claims and advises consumers to be cautious about purchasing unverified alternatives to traditional masks, especially during the winter season when respiratory viruses are prevalent [9]. - It emphasizes that wearing proper masks, such as surgical masks or N95 respirators, remains one of the simplest and most effective methods for protection against respiratory infections [10].

Core Viewpoint - The "liquid mask" nasal spray is gaining popularity as a product that claims to block viruses and bacteria, especially during the winter season when respiratory infections are prevalent. However, its effectiveness and safety are under scrutiny, with experts questioning its claims and potential health risks [1][3][5]. Group 1: Product Description and Market Performance - The "liquid mask" is marketed as a nasal spray that forms a physical barrier in the nasal cavity to isolate pathogens and allergens, with some products reportedly selling over 1 million bottles annually [1][3]. - The product claims to have a "99.9% blocking rate" against viruses, which is considered exaggerated and potentially misleading [8]. Group 2: Effectiveness and Scientific Validation - Experts express skepticism about the effectiveness of the "liquid mask," noting that it has not undergone clinical validation, and its protective effects are only supported by laboratory data, which may not reflect real-world conditions [5][6]. - The nasal cavity's complex structure makes it difficult for the spray to cover all areas effectively, leaving some mucous membranes exposed to pathogens [6]. Group 3: Comparison with Traditional Masks - The "liquid mask" is not a substitute for traditional masks, particularly medical surgical masks, which have established technical standards for blocking respiratory pathogens [8]. - Traditional masks provide a clear physical barrier, while the "liquid mask" lacks the rigorous testing and classification as a medical device, raising concerns about its safety and efficacy [8]. Group 4: Health Concerns and Long-term Use - Long-term use of the "liquid mask" may pose health risks, especially for individuals with allergies, as they may react negatively to the ingredients in the spray [9]. - There is a lack of systematic evaluation regarding the residual components of the spray and their potential impact on nasal mucosa health and the effectiveness of other nasal medications [9]. Group 5: Recommendations for Public Health - During the winter season, it is advised to wear proper masks, such as medical surgical masks or N95 masks, to effectively reduce the risk of virus transmission [10][11]. - Public health measures should include vaccination, proper mask usage, hand hygiene, and ventilation to combat respiratory infections [11].

Core Viewpoint - The "liquid mask" nasal spray is gaining popularity as a protective measure against respiratory viruses, especially during the winter season when respiratory infections are prevalent, but its effectiveness and safety are under scrutiny [1][4][5] Group 1: Product Overview - The "liquid mask" is marketed as a nasal spray that forms a physical barrier in the nasal cavity to block pathogens and allergens, claiming a "99.9% blockage rate" [1][4] - It is primarily sold as a consumer product rather than a medical device, lacking rigorous clinical validation [6][7] Group 2: Effectiveness and Limitations - The effectiveness of the "liquid mask" is questionable, as it has not undergone clinical trials, and its protective capabilities are only supported by laboratory conditions [5][6] - The nasal cavity's complex structure makes it difficult for the spray to cover all areas effectively, leaving some mucous membranes exposed to pathogens [5] - The protective film created by the spray is not durable and can be easily disrupted by normal activities such as nose-picking or sneezing [5][7] Group 3: Comparison with Traditional Masks - Traditional masks, especially surgical masks, are designed with specific technical standards to physically block respiratory pathogens, while the "liquid mask" lacks such standards [6] - The claims of the "liquid mask" being a comfortable alternative to traditional masks are misleading, as they do not provide equivalent protection [6] Group 4: Health Concerns - Long-term use of the "liquid mask" may pose health risks, particularly for individuals with allergies, as they may react negatively to the ingredients [7] - There is no comprehensive assessment of how the residual components of the spray affect nasal mucosa health or the efficacy of other nasal medications [7] Group 5: General Recommendations for Respiratory Protection - During the high season for respiratory infections, traditional preventive measures such as wearing masks, hand hygiene, and vaccination remain the most effective strategies [15][16] - The public is advised to be cautious of exaggerated claims regarding alternative products and to prioritize scientifically validated methods for disease prevention [15][16]

Core Points - The article highlights the increasing prevalence of "thunderstorm asthma" during the autumn season, particularly in northern regions, due to frequent thunderstorms and rising allergen levels in the air [1][2] - It emphasizes the need for heightened awareness among individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions, such as asthma and allergic rhinitis, as they are at higher risk during these weather events [1] Group 1 - Thunderstorm conditions can lead to the fragmentation of allergens like pollen and mold into smaller particles, increasing their inhalation risk [1] - The high-risk groups for "thunderstorm asthma" include individuals with asthma, hay fever, and those with weakened immune systems, such as children and the elderly [1] - Symptoms of "thunderstorm asthma" are similar to regular asthma but are more dangerous and can persist for 3 to 5 years in some patients [1] Group 2 - Medical professionals recommend preventive measures for susceptible individuals, including the use of antihistamines and carrying emergency asthma medications during thunderstorms [2] - Personal protective actions include keeping windows closed, avoiding outdoor activities, and wearing N95 masks and goggles if going outside [2] - After exposure, individuals should change clothes and wash their nasal passages and face to reduce the risk of allergen exposure [2]