Second cancers are on the rise; 1 in 5 US cases is a repeat

[TexasTowelie]

Second cancers are on the rise. Nearly 1 in 5 new cases in the U.S. now involves someone who has had the disease before.

When doctors talk about second cancers, they mean a different tissue type or a different site, not a recurrence or spread of the original tumor.

Judith Bernstein of suburban Philadelphia is an extreme example. She has had eight types over the last two decades, all treated successfully.

"There was a while when I was getting one cancer diagnosis after another," including breast, lung, esophageal, and the latest — a rare tumor of her eyelids, she said. "At one point I thought I had cancer in my little finger."

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/news/nation-world/national/article31999293.html

[SheilaT]

1. My first thought is that this may be connected to the simple fact

that we don't die of other diseases any more. We live long enough to get cancer. And then, for some unfortunate people, to get another cancer.

Keep in mind that cancer is a very ancient disease. Dinosaurs got cancer. Our ancestors seem to have gotten cancer at the same rates as modern people. I know that there's a huge urge to blame aspects of modern life, but cancer has been with us for a very, very long time.

[Brainstormy]

2. actually, . . . nope

The increase in cancer just since 1950 is staggering. Globally cancer rates are expected to increase by 50% by 2020. And childhood cancers have also increased. There is no question whatsoever that cancer is connected to "aspects of modern life." Most likely many aspects.

[trotsky]

3. Actually yep.

Are you aware we also live longer than we did in the 1950s? Average life expectancy is up about 10 years in that period.

[Brainstormy]

5. Actually, yes, but

life expectancy is going down in the US. We do, indeed, live longer than in the 50s. But the life expectancy trend has stalled for Americans. In comparison to other industrialized nations we're fatter, sicker, and dying younger. Since just the mid-1990s, the number of Americans suffering from at least three chronic illnesses has nearly doubled. And about cancer. While the number of people getting cancer in 1900 was about 1 in 33, today it’s 1 in 2.5. The U.S. incidence rate for cancer is the fourth highest of the 17 peer countries to which we’re most comparable. For some types of cancer, we’re much closer to the top. We rank second highest, for example, in rates of breast cancer. I could go on.

[trotsky]

6. Irrelevant.

You said cancer was up since the 50s. I pointed out we live significantly longer than we did in the 50s. Discussions about other conditions or illnesses are a red herring, feel free to start another thread if you want.

I know it's trendy to blame all our health problems on "modern society" or "toxins" or whatever, but the fact is, like so many diseases, cancer has been with us forever. At about the same rates. But one thing holds true: the longer you live, the more likely it is you will eventually get sick or have cancer. Understanding statistics is very important here - spouting things off like you are doing is a guaranteed way to get people to dismiss what you're trying to say.

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20110123/us-has-7th-highest-cancer-rate-in-the-world

Our lifestyles have a lot to do with our ranking, she says. “Americans are more likely to be overweight, drink more alcohol, and don't engage in as much physical activity as people in other parts of the world,” Bender says.

[Brainstormy]

11. suit yourself

and rely, if you choose to, on Web MD. Writing and researching health and food issues is what I do for a living. Take comfort if you must in in believing that environmental factors, industrialized food, etc., are not causing cancer and that it's occurring at the same rate as in the past. That won't change the facts.

[trotsky]

12. LOL, clearly that hit a nerve.

The WebMD article is simply quoting Alice Bender, MS, RD, a nutrition communications manager at the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) in Washington, D.C.

Researching health and food issues is what she does, but I'm sure that you, an anonymous person on the Interent, know far more than she ever could.

When you have some facts to present, let me know and I'll analyze them.

[SheilaT]

10. We also can diagnose cancer

and diagnose it earlier than we used to be able to.

The fact that most men die with prostate cancer, if they live long enough, but not from it, is one small part of this. A couple of days ago there was an article in the local paper about ductal carcinoma in situ, basically a pre-cancerous change. Turns out there is absolutely no difference in survival rates between women who have total mastectomies, those who have lumpectomies, and those with no treatment at all. Sometimes cancer is over treated.

[postulater]

4. Here's an article on the history of cancer that might be relevant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3003131/

"These investigators used computed tomography for fluoroscopically screening more than 10,000 specimens of dinosaur vertebrae for evidence of tumors. Of the specimens examined, investigators reported tumors in bones of Cretaceous hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs). In this species, maximum cancer susceptibility was approximately 3% of bones examined, which showed lumps by imaging identified as various types of tumors including hemangiomas, metastatic cancer, desmoplastic fibroma, and osteoblastoma. The familial pattern found seemed to reflect a genetic propensity or, alternatively, the result of environmental mutagens because these dinosaurs likely ate foliage of conifers rich in carcinogenic tannins, phenols, and resins.

Taking into account the limitations of the diagnostic tools used to study remains, there is an agreement that cancer in dinosaurs is relatively scarce. Age at death, diet, and environmental factors may have a significant influence on the incidence of these cancers.

Evidence from Ancient Civilizations (Egyptian, Greek, and Roman)

Evidence of cancer in humans has been uncovered in the earliest medical records found left by the ancient Egyptians (3000–800 bc).
......
......

An interesting phenomenon has arisen during the course of multi-year studies related to the rarity of cancer in antiquity. This is of interest especially when considering that hundreds of Egyptian mummies and more than 10,000 dinosaur bones were evaluated. In contrast, the rate of cancer incidence has dramatically increased since the Industrial Revolution. The rarity of cancer in antiquity has been attributed to the lack of pollution and changes in diet and lifestyle, and most recent findings suggest that cancer may be a manmade disease (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733). Thus, while a lack of adequate techniques for disease diagnosis and detection may partially explain the overall lack of cancer found during the millennia, the current cancer trends are now primarily associated with carcinogens in our modern industrialized society (Nat Rev Cancer 10, 728–733). Whether this hypothesis is indeed the case, what is clear from ancient Egyptian and Greek writings along with information accumulated throughout the millennia is that improved understanding of the biological basis for the disease as well as improved cancer treatments is needed."

[trotsky]

7. The problem with getting an accurate picture of cancer from so long ago...

is that the only record we have is from fossils. I.e., bones. Unless someone had a cancer of the bones, or one that metastasized in the bones, we aren't going to have any record of it that we can study.

It's like saying hardly any men in ancient history had penises, because we just don't find them among remains.

[SheilaT]

8. Exactly. In looking at dinosaurs

Last edited Tue Aug 25, 2015, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

or old human burials, we can only find the cancers that leave their mark on bones. Not very many do.

The Cancer Chronicles by George Johnson gives an excellent account of all this, and the fact that cancer probably has been relatively constant throughout human history. An important reason more cancers are diagnosed today is very strongly connected to the fact that we really do live longer, many of us long enough to develop cancers that take decades to manifest themselves. Yes, there are some environmental associations, but the main one is smoking. Every other environmental connection is quite slight.

Excellent book. I highly recommend it.

[trotsky]

9. A saying I heard, that really drives this point home...

is that all men, if they lived long enough, would develop prostate cancer. It's a certainty due to the nature of the gland and the cells in it, apparently.