Last updated: 2026-09-13

The Centre for Health Protection's "Lung Cancer" page states that 3,935 people in Hong Kong died of lung cancer in 2024, 26.1% of cancer deaths, still first. The Department of Health's latest household survey, published in May 2026, shows that 8.5% of people aged 15 and above smoked conventional cigarettes daily in 2025. These two sets of figures differ in year, in population and in measure, and cannot on their own be used to conclude that tobacco control has failed, or to calculate the proportion of lung cancer patients who have never smoked. Over 2014–2023 the age-standardised incidence rate of lung cancer fell by an average of 1.3% a year in men and rose by 1.7% a year in women; but in 2023 the level in women was still below that in men (28.3 against 44.4 per 100,000 standard population, WHO 2001 standard). You can develop lung cancer without smoking; secondhand smoke, air pollution, exposure to carcinogens, age and family history are all risk factors that the official material lists. Hong Kong's 2025 lung cancer leaflet does not recommend routine screening for asymptomatic people at average risk; for people with a heavy smoking history, the official advice is to discuss with a doctor the potential benefits of LDCT along with false positives, follow-up investigations and the other harms. Lung cancer screening and diagnostic investigation when symptoms are present are two different things.

What exactly is lung cancer, and how many cases does Hong Kong have each year?

Lung cancer is a malignant tumour formed by the abnormal growth of cells in the lungs, and in Hong Kong it is at once the most common and the most fatal cancer. The leaflet Lung Cancer Prevention and Screening — Cancer Prevention Series 6, published by the Non-communicable Disease Branch of the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health (footer dated Mar 2025), opens:

Lung cancer is a malignant tumour which results from abnormal growth of cells in the lungs.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in Hong Kong.

On numbers, paragraph 1.4 of Chapter 1 of the Hong Kong Cancer Registry's Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2023 (the suggested citation box prints "Hong Kong Hospital Authority; Aug 2025") states:

The top five most common cancers were lung (6,111 cases or 16.1%), breast (5,603 cases or 14.8%), colorectum (5,467 cases or 14.4%), prostate (3,031 cases or 8%), and liver (1,700 cases or 4.5%), accounting for 58% of all new cancer cases. Breast cancer, including 18 male cases, became the second most common cancer, overtaking colorectal cancer for two consecutive years.

On deaths, paragraph 2.2 of Chapter 2 of the same Overview states:

The top five cancers causing deaths were lung (3,880 deaths or 26.1%), colorectum (2,266 deaths or 15.2%), liver (1,408 deaths or 9.5%), pancreas (918 deaths or 6.2%), and breast (834 deaths or 5.6%), making up about 63% of all cancer deaths.

⚠️ Both of the figures above are for 2023; the Centre for Health Protection's health topic page carries a death figure for 2024 instead (3 935 people, 26.1%). The two do not correct one another — they are two different years, each presenting registered death statistics for the year stated. The people who died in a given year are also not a follow-up cohort of that year's new cases, so deaths cannot be divided by new cases to give a case fatality rate.

The smoking rate has fallen to 8.5%. Why is lung cancer still first?

Rank, number of deaths and age-adjusted death rate answer different questions. Lung cancer being "first" is a comparison against other cancers; the age structure of the population affects the counts, and a smoking survey is not a survey of the smoking history of cancer patients. An annual smoking rate and a cancer death count cannot on their own establish a causal relationship.

Paragraph 2.4 and Table 2 of the Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2023 record an overall change in lung cancer deaths of +0.3% between 2013 and 2023, with no marked increase. For the age-standardised mortality rate of lung cancer itself, see the Centre for Health Protection's "Lung Cancer" page: over 2015–2024 the AAPC for both sexes, males and females was −3.3%, −3.1% and −2.0% respectively (WHO 2001 standard). A near-flat number of deaths and a falling age-adjusted death rate can occur at the same time; the two also cover different observation periods, and are not merged into a single result.

The latest smoking rate is 8.5%, for 2025. The Department of Health's release of 27 May 2026 states that a household survey conducted from July to October 2025 estimated around 540,000 people aged 15 and above with a daily habit of smoking conventional cigarettes, a rate falling from 9.1% in 2023 to 8.5% in 2025. The 14.4% for 2002 and 9.5% for 2021 given in Non-Communicable Diseases Watch of June 2024 are earlier data. Department of Health survey release

Men and women are moving in different directions. From the incidence trend section of the Centre for Health Protection's health topic page (self-dated 23 January 2026; the Chinese edition of this page prints the passage with letter spacing between characters, and the English text is quoted here as printed):

The age-standardised incidence rate of lung cancer of males had a downward trend over the past 41 years (AAPC between 1983 and 2023: -1.8%) and over the past 10 years (AAPC between 2014 and 2023: -1.3%).

The age-standardised incidence rate of lung cancer of females had a downward trend over the past 41 years (AAPC between 1983 and 2023: -0.7%), but an upward trend over the past 10 years (AAPC between 2014 and 2023: 1.7%).

⚠️ AAPC is the "average annual percentage change", and the note on that page states that it is "a summary measure of the trends in the age-standardised incidence rates over a specified interval estimated from joinpoint regression". This is about the direction of the incidence rate, not about counts, and it does not say that the incidence rate in women is higher than in men — the 2023 age-standardised incidence rates listed on the same page are 44.4 for males and 28.3 for females (per 100,000 standard population, WHO 2001 standard).

The HKCaR's Lung Cancer in 2023 fact sheet uses the Segi 1960 standard instead: the 2023 age-standardised incidence rates for males and females are 38.9 and 25.2, and the AAPCs over the past ten years are −1.2% and +1.5%. The direction is the same under both standards but the values differ, and the +1.5% for women should not be joined to the +1.7% as if they were one trend line. The Overview also cautions that annual figures may fluctuate randomly and that longer-term trends are more suitable for interpretation.

Smoking-related proportions also need their source and their region distinguished.

  • The Cancer Online Resource Hub's "Lung Cancer" page (self-dated 28-4-2026) writes, under "Who have higher chance of having Lung Cancer?": "Smoking. 90% of lung cancer cases are related to cigarette smoking. Having a long-term history of smoking started at young age would further increase the risk of getting lung cancer." That page gives no source for the 90%.
  • The Centre for Health Protection's Non-Communicable Diseases Watch of June 2024 writes: "Across the globe, 80–85% of lung cancer cases are thought to result from smoking", with a reference to the IARC's World Cancer Report (2020). That sentence says "across the globe", not Hong Kong.

The first page gives neither the population nor the source for its 90%, and the second is explicitly global; neither page supplies a reconstructible population attributable fraction for Hong Kong. Neither can therefore be used to calculate the proportion of never-smokers among lung cancer patients in Hong Kong, and the absence of a source cannot be read backwards as proof that the figure does not derive from local data.

Why does the stage of lung cancer matter? What can the symptoms be?

Tobacco smoke is classified by IARC as a Group 1 carcinogen, and early lung cancer usually gives no clear signal. Non-Communicable Diseases Watch, June 2024:

Smoking any kind of tobacco products (including cigarettes, cigars or pipes) is the most important cause of lung cancer4. Across the globe, 80–85% of lung cancer cases are thought to result from smoking1. Classified as a Group 1 carcinogen (a cancer-causing substance to humans) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, tobacco smoke is a mix of more than 7 000 chemicals including at least 69 known to cause cancer1. Thus, there is no safe level of tobacco exposure5; even smoking occasionally increases the risk of cancer. Compared to nonsmokers, tobacco smokers are up to 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer in their lifetime6. The earlier the smokers start smoking and the more they smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer7.

Why does stage matter so much? The official material says it in survival figures. The Cancer Online Resource Hub's "Lung Cancer" page (28-4-2026):

Detection of lung cancer in its early stages can increase chances of cure. However, most of the patients are not diagnosed until the lung cancer is in metaphase or advanced stage, thus making it more difficult to cure. … According to the Cancer Registry statistics, the overall five-year relative survival rate with lung cancer was 21.8%. The five-year relative survival rates were 72.4% at stage I, 45.4% at stage II, and 24.6% at stage III. Stage IV lung cancer had a five-year relative survival rate of 7.8%.

⚠️ "Relative survival" is a population statistic, not an individual prediction. The Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2023 prints: "Survival statistics are derived from data on patients diagnosed in the past and may not reflect each individual's situation." This set of figures — 21.8%, 72.4%, 45.4%, 24.6% and 7.8% — corresponds to the 2010–2020 diagnosis cohort in Table 3 and paragraph 6.3 of the HKCaR's Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2021, and is not the five-year outcome of the 2023 new cases. HKCaR survival statistics

The same paragraph on the Cancer Online Resource Hub also reminds smokers and people frequently exposed to secondhand smoke and other high-risk groups to stay vigilant for respiratory disease, the purpose being early detection when something is wrong; that official reminder is not a recommendation that everyone undergo asymptomatic screening.

What are the stages at diagnosis? Non-Communicable Diseases Watch of June 2024 states that, among the 5 978 new lung cancer cases recorded in 2021, "over half (56.9%) of the cases belonged to the most advanced stage at time of diagnosis". The more recent Lung Cancer in 2023 fact sheet gives stage I 19.9%, stage II 5.4%, stage III 12.6%, stage IV 53.8% and unstaged 8.4% (AJCC 8th edition; after rounding the figures may not total 100%). That is the stage distribution of all new cases, not the staging of screening participants.

Symptoms are not a diagnosis, but the official material has a clear prompt to seek care. The Centre for Health Protection / Department of Health leaflet (Mar 2025):

What are the common symptoms of lung cancer?
The symptoms of lung cancer may not be easily noticed at an early stage. Common symptoms include:
• Persistent cough
• Coughing up blood
• Repeated chest infections
• Shortness of breath
• Hoarseness
• Chest pain
• Unexplained tiredness and weight loss
You should consult a doctor as soon as possible if you develop any of the above symptoms.

The Cancer Online Resource Hub's section on the symptoms of lung cancer also lists poor appetite; and, if the cancer spreads, swollen lymph nodes in the neck, swelling of the neck, face or hands, abdominal distention, bone pain, headache, partial epilepsy or hemiplegia. ⚠️ The English page prints "scrofulous" here, a word that denotes mycobacterial disease of the neck lymph nodes rather than cancer-related swelling; the Chinese page describes swollen neck lymph nodes and swelling of the neck, face and hands. The wording above summarises the Chinese page. These symptoms may also have other causes; the list cannot be used to diagnose oneself, and not having anything on the list does not mean there is no cancer.

Can you get lung cancer without smoking? What the official material says, and what it does not

Yes. The lung cancer risk factors listed officially go beyond smoking. The "Prevention" section of the Cancer Online Resource Hub's "Lung Cancer" page (28-4-2026) lists:

Cigarette smoking is the most important risk factor for lung cancer. Other risk factors include:
Increasing age
Exposure to secondhand smoke
Air pollution, including outdoor and indoor
Occupational exposure to certain carcinogens (e.g. radon, asbestos, etc.)
Previous lung diseases (e.g. chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
Family history of lung cancer, especially with a first-degree relative

This list sets out risk factors; it does not mean that having one of them means cancer will certainly follow, nor that a single cause can be identified for every cancer.

Cooking fumes are named in Non-Communicable Diseases Watch, June 2024:

Other risk factors for developing lung cancer include occupational exposure to carcinogens (such as asbestos, nickel, radon gas and crystalline silica, etc.), outdoor and indoor air pollution (such as cooking fumes in poorly ventilated homes), previous lung diseases (such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), increasing age, and family history of lung cancer (particularly with a first-degree relative)1, 4.

There is local research on cooking fumes. Yu ITS and colleagues published a Hong Kong population-based case-control study in Cancer Research in 2006 (volume 66, issue 9). The abstract states:

We carried out a population-based case-control study in Hong Kong. Cases were Chinese female nonsmokers with newly diagnosed primary lung cancer. Controls were female nonsmokers randomly sampled from the community, frequency matched by age groups. … We interviewed 200 cases and 285 controls. The ORs of lung cancer across increasing levels of cooking dish-years were 1, 1.17, 1.92, 2.26, and 6.15. After adjusting for age and other potential confounding factors, the increasing trend of ORs with increasing exposure categories became clearer, being 1, 1.31, 4.12, 4.68, and 34.

"Cooking dish-years" is the proxy the study used for cumulative exposure to cooking fumes, grouped in steps of 50 dish-years; it is not a direct measurement of how much carcinogen was inhaled into the lungs. The abstract also compares cooking methods: per 10 dish-years, the OR was 2.56 for deep frying, 1.47 for pan frying and 1.12 for stir frying, the last being the lowest of the three. An OR is an odds ratio, not a probability of developing cancer or a direct multiple of risk; case-control studies may also be affected by recall and by confounding. These results cannot be converted into a statement that cooking a given number of meals will cause cancer, or into an individual cooking prescription. This article's account of the figures in both the cooking-fume and the smoking studies is confined to the abstracts.

A single study finding no statistical association does not overturn the overall evidence on secondhand smoke.

  • Centre for Health Protection, Non-Communicable Diseases Watch, June 2024: "For never-smokers, exposure to secondhand smoke would confer an estimated 25% increase in risk of developing lung cancer8. The greater the frequency and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer5, 7."
  • Another Hong Kong study (Wang XR and colleagues, Annals of Oncology 2009, volume 20, issue 4) analysed 279 Hong Kong women with newly diagnosed lung cancer against 322 community controls. The abstract states: "No increased risk was observed in environmental tobacco smoking."

The Centre for Health Protection's 25% refers explicitly to never-smokers; the Wang study included women who were current, former and never smokers, and its abstract also states that smoking and cooking fumes are important risk factors. The study populations, the exposure measurement and the statistical precision differ, and these two sentences should not be packaged as an evenly matched dispute between bodies of evidence. No increase observed in one sample is not proof that secondhand smoke is safe; Hong Kong's official risk list still names secondhand smoke.

This article does not supply the proportion of never-smokers among all lung cancer patients in Hong Kong. The named scope is 4 materials that directly describe lung cancer in Hong Kong: the Lung Cancer in 2023 fact sheet, the Centre for Health Protection's "Lung Cancer" page, Non-Communicable Diseases Watch of June 2024, and the Cancer Online Resource Hub's "Lung Cancer" page; none of them gives that territory-wide proportion. This is a gap within a defined set of materials, not an assertion that the Government has never published it. The smoking rate of the general population, the proportion of female patients, studies of adenocarcinoma in non-smokers and studies of women abroad cannot directly supply that denominator.

On genetic mutations there are figures, but the scope is narrow. The PIONEER study (published in the Journal of Thoracic Oncology in 2014, recruiting during 2010–2011 across seven Asian countries and territories including Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Hong Kong) reported an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutation rate of 60.7% among never-smokers (462 of 761). ⚠️ The subjects were patients with advanced (stage IIIB/IV) adenocarcinoma, not all lung cancer patients and not the general population; EGFR here is a tumour test result, and does not mean that every participant inherited some cancer-causing gene. The study's multivariate analysis also states that "sex was not significant when adjusted for smoking status", so this figure cannot be built into a claim about "younger women".

Is there a government lung cancer screening programme in Hong Kong?

The programmes listed in the Department of Health's World Cancer Day release of February 2026 are the Cervical Screening Programme, the Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme and the Breast Cancer Screening Pilot Programme; lung cancer is not among them. The 2025 lung cancer leaflet offers screening advice, but it is not an announcement that the Government has established a subsidised lung cancer programme. These two named documents do not announce any population-wide or subsidised government lung cancer screening arrangement open for enrolment; research studies and individual clinical services must be understood separately. Department of Health release

The official position on "should I go and get scanned" has a public version. Page 2 of the Department of Health / Centre for Health Protection leaflet Lung Cancer Prevention and Screening (Mar 2025):

For asymptomatic population at average risk
• Routine screening for lung cancer (including chest X-ray, sputum cytology or low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)) is not recommended.

For asymptomatic persons at increased risk
• There is currently insufficient data to assess the benefit vs harm and cost-effectiveness of LDCT screening and its associated criteria such as target groups and optimal screening protocol in the local setting. Based on overseas literature, asymptomatic persons with heavy smoking history (i.e., more than 20-30 pack-year* and who either currently smoke or have quit for not more than 10-15 years) that put them at increased risk of lung cancer may benefit from LDCT screening. … Since the local applicability of these criteria has not been sufficiently characterised, persons with heavy smoking history are advised to discuss with their doctors the benefits and harms (including false-positive findings and potential follow up investigations) of LDCT screening before making an informed and individualised decision.
*pack-year = multiply number of packs of cigarettes per day by number of years smoked

The passage omitted above is the overseas range of ages and intervals: usually starting at 50–55 and finishing at 74–80, performed annually or biennially; the leaflet stresses that there is not sufficient evidence that these criteria apply to Hong Kong. The increased-risk column also has a second item: screening for lung cancer with chest X-ray or sputum cytology is not recommended. So that column is not drawn on pack-years alone; and asymptomatic people at average risk, including never-smokers who fall into that risk group, already have official guidance that routine screening is not recommended.

Where does this advice come from? The Centre for Health Protection's "Cancer Expert Working Group on Cancer Prevention and Screening" page sets out that the group's terms of reference include "To formulate guidelines for cancer primary prevention and screening in both clinical and community settings." Paragraph 28 on page 11 of the group's professional document Recommendations on Prevention and Screening for Lung Cancer For Health Professionals states that the recommendations were "endorsed by the Cancer Coordinating Committee at its 18th meeting on 12 June 2023"; the document date June 2023 is printed on page 12.

⚠️ This professional document exists only in English, and the Centre for Health Protection's Chinese page marks it as such: "肺癌預防及篩查的建議 (只備英文版)". The quotation below is the document's own English text:

  1. There are as yet no local studies on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and benefits-versus-harms of LDCT screening in individuals at high risk. Moreover, there is also no locally validated risk assessment tool to characterise individuals at high risk of lung cancer or set any risk threshold for screening.

That statement has a clear time limit. Loong and colleagues published a Hong Kong LDCT cost-effectiveness model in 2025, combining local cost and survival data with screening data from NELSON and Taiwan's TALENT; the model's results suggest that both a high-risk group defined by smoking and a high-risk group defined by factors other than smoking could meet the cost-effectiveness threshold the study adopted. This is a model result, dependent on assumptions about population, cost and effectiveness. It is not a mortality reduction observed in a Hong Kong randomised trial, still less an indication that the Government has adopted a new screening programme.

Paragraph 23 of the same 2023 document records that the University of Hong Kong participates in the International Lung Screening Trial (ILST), a prospective cohort study across nine international screening sites. Participants aged 55 to 80 had to meet the 2013 USPSTF criteria (at least 30 pack-years, currently smoking or having quit less than 15 years ago) or a PLCOm2012 six-year lung cancer risk of at least 1.51%. That is a historical research arrangement, not a 2026 recruitment notice.

Benefits and costs have to be read together. The following is this site's summary of the overseas studies set out in paragraphs 13 to 19 of the CEWG's 2023 professional document:

  • In the NLST, LDCT compared with chest X-ray in high-risk people yielded a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality over a median follow-up of 6.5 years (95% confidence interval 6.8–26.7%); about 320 people needed to be screened to prevent one lung cancer death. That is not an estimate of benefit for all ages or for never-smokers.
  • The average false-positive rate per screening round in the NLST was 23.3%; among those with false-positive results, 1.7% received invasive procedures and 0.1% experienced complications. A false positive does not mean that everyone goes on to surgery, but it is not free of burden either.
  • NELSON reported a false-positive rate of 1.2%, but an indeterminate rate of 19.7% at baseline requiring follow-up. The two studies define a positive result differently, so 23.3% and 1.2% should not be ranked directly against each other as better or worse.
  • Paragraph 19 cites an NLST estimate that each participant might receive an average of about 8 mSv of radiation over three years, counting both screening and diagnostic imaging, and that approximately one cancer death per 2,500 people screened may be induced by radiation exposure. That is a cumulative model estimate for that protocol, not the dose of a single LDCT in Hong Kong. The same paragraph of the document takes the view that, in that high-risk screening context, the benefit of preventing lung cancer deaths substantially outweighs the radiation risk.

Screening may also find cancers that would never have caused a problem in a person's lifetime, leading to over-diagnosis and over-treatment; nodules and indeterminate results can also cause anxiety. These factors explain why the official approach handles screening through risk groups and informed decision-making, rather than assuming that more imaging is necessarily better.

What does a CT scan cost at a public hospital?

The Hospital Authority's "Public Healthcare Fee Reform" page states that, from 1 January 2026, non-urgent radiology services for eligible persons are charged in three tiers, with computed tomography falling in the "Advanced Item" tier at $500. The text:

Q3. What is the tiered charge for non-urgent radiology services?
The tiered charge for non-urgent radiology services for Eligible Persons is as follows:
- Basic Item: X-ray (Free of charge)
- Intermediate Item: Fluoroscopy, Ultrasonography and Mammography ($250)
- Advanced Item: Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Breast Interventional Radiology, Angiography & Vascular Interventional Radiology, Non-vascular Interventional Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography ($500)

⚠️ For the scope, see Q2 of "Part 5: Non-urgent Radiology Services": "The charges apply to non-urgent radiology services arranged through out-patient clinics, Accident & Emergency (A&E) follow-up appointments, day inpatient service, or upon discharge from inpatient care. Urgent radiology services for inpatients and A&E patients remain free of charge." — this is not the price of "going for a lung cancer screening", nor a private price.

⚠️ Q5 of Part 5 sets out the payment condition: "In general, payment for non-urgent radiology services must be settled at least 14 calendar days before the appointment date." The sentence immediately after it is "If the payment is not fully settled before the 'payment deadline', your appointment will be automatically cancelled and the appointment slot will be allocated to another patient."

The main published figures on lung cancer in Hong Kong, with the source and that source's own date given row by row. Last updated: 2026-09-13. A = Hong Kong Cancer Registry, Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2023 (document dated Aug 2025): https://www3.ha.org.hk/cancereg/pdf/overview/Overview%20of%20HK%20Cancer%20Stat%202023.pdf | B = Centre for Health Protection, "Lung Cancer" health topic page (self-dated 23 January 2026): https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/healthtopics/content/25/49.html | C = Non-Communicable Diseases Watch, June 2024 (self-dated: June 2024): https://www.chp.gov.hk/files/pdf/ncd_watch_jun_2024_eng.pdf | D = Hospital Authority, "Public Healthcare Fee Reform" page (no self-printed date on the page; the fees take effect from 1 January 2026): https://www.ha.org.hk/ho/corpcomm/fncr/index-en.html
ItemFigure (with year)Source and that source's own date
New lung cancer cases6 111 in 2023, 16.1% of all new cancer cases in Hong KongA (Aug 2025)
Lung cancer deaths3 880 in 2023, 26.1% of cancer deathsA (Aug 2025)
Lung cancer deaths (more recent year)3 935 in 2024, also 26.1%B (23 January 2026)
Age-standardised death rate (calculated against the world standard population in WHO GPE Discussion Paper Series No. 31, 2001)2024: males 29.0, females 12.9 (per 100 000 standard population)B (23 January 2026)
Daily smoking rate, aged 15 and above8.5% in 2025 (daily smoking of conventional cigarettes)Department of Health survey release, 27 May 2026
Charge for non-urgent radiology "Advanced Item" (including computed tomography), eligible persons$500, from 1 January 2026D (effective 1 January 2026)

⚠️ The age-standardised death rate in the table cannot be compared directly with the identically named rate in the Overview of Hong Kong Cancer Statistics of 2023: the note to Figure 3 of that Overview states "Age-standardised rates are adjusted to the World Standard Population (Segi 1960)", while the Centre for Health Protection uses the standard population in WHO GPE Discussion Paper Series No. 31 (2001). The standard populations differ, and they cannot be joined into one trend.

Common questions

  • How common is lung cancer in Hong Kong? The HKCaR recorded 6,111 new cases and 3,880 deaths for 2023; the Centre for Health Protection separately gives 3,935 deaths for 2024. The years and the measures differ, and they should not be divided to give a case fatality rate.
  • If I do not smoke, can I avoid lung cancer? No. The official material also lists secondhand smoke, air pollution, occupational carcinogens, age, lung disease and family history among the risk factors. The 4 Hong Kong lung cancer materials listed in this article do not give the territory-wide proportion of never-smokers among patients, and figures from overseas or from the general population are not used as a substitute.
  • Is there free or subsidised lung cancer screening from the Government? The Department of Health's February 2026 release and the 2025 lung cancer leaflet do not list any population-wide or subsidised government lung cancer screening arrangement in operation; that scope does not rule out university research or clinical services.
  • Should people in general have a regular LDCT? The 2025 leaflet does not recommend routine screening for asymptomatic people at average risk. For people with a heavy smoking history, the official guidance is to discuss the potential benefits, false positives and follow-up investigations first and, having understood the limits of the local evidence, make an informed decision; chest X-ray and sputum cytology are also not recommended for screening people at increased risk.
  • If I have symptoms, does that count as screening? Screening is aimed at people without symptoms; when symptoms are present it is clinical assessment. The Centre for Health Protection's leaflet says that anyone who develops a persistent cough, coughing up blood, shortness of breath or the other listed symptoms should consult a doctor as soon as possible.

Related articles:

What this article covers

The boundary of this article's information on the proportion of never-smokers among patients in Hong Kong is the 4 named lung cancer materials described above; the boundary on government programme arrangements is the 2026 World Cancer Day release and the 2025 lung cancer leaflet, and what those materials do not list is not written up as not existing anywhere in Hong Kong. The PIONEER figures represent only that study's population; the statistics from the individual cooking-fume and secondhand-smoke studies are not tools for calculating personal risk.

This article does not provide private-sector prices, public hospital waiting times, or an individual investigation or treatment plan. The Hospital Authority's HK$500 is a conditional non-urgent radiology charge, not an enrolment fee for lung cancer screening; a research cost model is not a market price either. When age-standardised rates are compared, the Segi 1960 and WHO 2001 standards are handled separately.

  • This is the English edition. The Traditional Chinese edition is the authoritative version of this article. Quotations above are reproduced from the official English text published by the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, or from the original English of the journal sources, not translated by this site.

Sources

Official figures and arrangements may be updated; the announcements of the relevant organisations govern. This article is health information, not medical advice. If you become seriously unwell, seek medical attention early; in an emergency, go at once to the nearest Accident and Emergency Department.