It seems screening for lung cancer doesn't save lives and it doesn't prevent advanced disease. But it does lead to potentially unnecessary and harmful treatment.

This isn't the final word on the use of CT scans to screen smokers and former smokers for the disease. But right now, the hope some experts had for the special X-rays to detect tiny lung abnormalities has been diminished by a large study that is still in the works. And until conclusive evidence says the screening is useful, the American Cancer Society will not endorse the test.

While CT screening did increase diagnosis and treatment -- those screened were three times more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer and 10 times more likely to have lung surgery than predicted -- study co-author Dr. Peter Bach of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York says, "We don't see a trace of evidence that a single life was saved, that a single case of advanced cancer was avoided."

And because CT scanning led to more biopsies and surgeries, patients were put at risk for complications such as lung puncture, bleeding, and infection, according to Bach, whose work is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"Getting screened for lung cancer with CT scanning is not only unproven, it's potentially a risky endeavor," he said.

Until an effective screening tool emerges -- possibly still years away -- experts say there is one surefire way to protect yourself from lung cancer. Stop smoking.

Early trials show a breath test for lung cancer detection may surface in the not-too-distant future. And it could be simple, inexpensive, non-invasive, and effective too.

The tests needs a good amount of work still, but if we keep our fingers crossed and medical researchers stay hot on the trail of this test, it just might be possible to one day spot lung cancer by simply breathing into a device for a few minutes.

The lung cancer breath test measures chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the breath. There's a certain pattern of VOCs associated with lung cancer, and they show up as colored dots across a quarter-sized panel.

The theory behind this test is great. The test itself is not perfect yet, however.

It's promising, though, says The Cleveland Clinic's Peter Mazzone, MD, MPH and colleagues who describe the test in the Online First edition of the journal Thorax and reveal the test correctly identified in studies three out of four people with lung cancer and detected lung cancer almost as frequently.

Cancer patients receiving treatment at the Arizona Cancer Center in Tucson will walk through the doors of a new building -- the Fasseas Cancer Center-- beginning tomorrow morning.

The new center, named after major donors Peter and Paula Fasseas, is built on the skeleton of a defunct Tucson hospital. It took 16 months to build and cost an estimated $30 million. And now the comprehensive cancer center is ready for use.

More than 800 cancer patients have appointments during the first week, and 110 medical staff will relocate to the new clinic that has been called the crown jewel of new University Medical Center North Campus and one of the most modern cancer treatment centers in the United States.

The new two-story clinic -- to be joined later by facilities for radiation oncology, ambulatory surgery, imaging services, and a Ronald McDonald House for pediatric patients and their families -- will feature patient support groups, counseling, therapeutic massage, a healing garden, a resource center, and a salon to help patients cope with hair loss and other side effects of cancer treatment.

A formal grand opening for the new clinic is planned for February 18.

In 2006, 174,470 people will be diagnosed with lung cancer in the United States. About 92,700 men and 81,770 women will develop the disease -- the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women.

An estimated 162,460 men and women will die of lung cancer this year, accounting for 28 percent of all cancer deaths and taking more lives than colon, breast, and prostate cancers combined. While most people diagnosed with lung cancer will die within the first two years of diagnosis -- this has not changed in 10 years -- some people are cured. There are currently about 333,000 long-term survivors.

ABC World News Tonight partnered with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Cancer Institute and the North American Quitline Consortium to present a special series Quit to Live. According to statistics, approximately 440,000 Americans will die from smoking-related illnesses this year. A more encouraging statistic is while there are 46 million smokers, for the first time, there are more ex-smokers than smokers.

The Quit to Live series is a comprehensive resource for the 70 percent of smokers who have indicated they are interested in quitting. At Quit to Live, you can watch the complete special series coverage in video broadcast reports; watch broadcast plus exclusive web-only content; view the videoblogs of Tracy, Jose, Meg and Alyce; how to quit thinking about quitting and compare different methods and find groups that can help.

You can read ABC medical editor Dr. Tim Johnson and experts from the nation's leading cancer centers answers to questions about smoking at Ask Tim. In addition to original reports and reviewed resources, they offer community to connect with others. This week, ABC News revisited the Quit to Live special series on the anniversary of Peter Jennings death to lung cancer. Any smoker interested in quitting will find this special series of great value -- you might want to start by watching the video Expert Interview on How to Quit.

George W. Bush declared five years ago that no federal funding would be allocated for embryonic stem cell research. He has not changed his mind -- and two weeks ago vetoed a bill that would allow this research. He says that supporting the bill would be supporting the taking of innocent human life in order to find medical benefits for others. For Bush, it crosses a moral boundary. But most Americans support stem cell research and would like to see the Bush White House loosen its restrictions, says Kathy Hudson, director of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. Until this happens, though, scientists and researchers find themselves in an ethically-charged minefield, operating carefully and responsibly and ethically.

Dr. Peter Dirks -- a neurosurgeon specializing in childhood brain cancer at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children who has been making headlines around the world for isolating brain cancer stem cells two years ago -- is one person weighing in on controversial issue of stem cell research. Dirks does not use embryonic stem cells but instead uses cells from tumors removed during brain surgery that would otherwise be discarded. But he says embryonic stem cell research is critical for his success. It's what has led to the findings that exist today -- and it holds the clues for further discovery. It's a delicate matter, though, regardless of the politics surrounding the issue. Before he harvests stem cells from any patient's brain tumor, for example, Dirks asks parents to sign a three and a half-page consent form. And that's just the beginning.

Federally-funded embryonic stem cell research does not yet have its beginning here in the United States. Maybe the tides will change. Maybe we will see progress. Maybe we won't. Only time will tell.

There is no doubt that the new cervical cancer vaccine -- Gardasil -- is revolutionary. But writer Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, shared yesterday on the washingtonpost.com that the public should consider two cautions when digesting the news of this breakthrough medical advance. He urges us, first, to understand that the vaccine is not 100 percent effective. It is 100 percent effective for the strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) it targets -- but it leaves 30 percent of HPV strains that cause cervical cancer untouched. And it does not prevent all cases of genital warts either. So it is largely effective. But it does not completely eradicate the disease.

Sprigg also believes that parents should determine whether or not their young girls get the vaccine -- that it should not be mandatory. Mandating the vaccine might be in order if HPV was spread through blood or casual contact. But it is not -- it is spread by sexual contact. And families of young girls might best address this issue through education on behavioral issues alone, without interference from the government.

The wonder of the cervical cancer vaccine is not in question by this writer and the council he represents. But there is often a full picture that lingers behind good news and sensational headlines. And Peter Sprigg offers his take on what he believes lingers behind.

Lord of the Rings Oscar award-winning filmmakers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh have donated over $300,000 dollars to the University of California for human embryonic stem cell research.

Jackson is quoted as saying, "We have lost close friends and relatives to cancer and Parkinson's disease, and the level of personal suffering inflicted on patients and their families by these diseases is horrific."

The Bill and Joan Jackson Scholars Fund, in honor of Jackson's parents, will be established through the university to award two scholarships to students specializing in stem cell research. Because the US government restricts research funding for the use of stem cells from human embryos -- which some religious groups have objected to as morally equivalent to abortion -- and others support as the path to cures for many diseases including cancer -- human embryonic stem cell research in this country requires private funding.

"Stem cell therapy has the potential to treat a multitude of diseases and illnesses, which up until now have been labelled incurable. It has the capacity to exponentially improve the quality of life for those who currently suffer from spinal cord injury, diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and many other debilitating medical conditions, " stated Jackson.