8 ms·

Study finds almost half of all cancers linked to preventable factors

77 points by cpncrunch 11y ago

blakesterz 11y ago
I wonder how many places will report this with the headline: "Study finds majority of all cancers are not preventable" I can't tell exactly what this does mean... does it really mean most cancers are just not preventable? If 45% are preventable, then are the rest NOT? The risks [0] are pretty obvious. The "Other Risks" [1] are rather interesting though. [0] http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/ [1]http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-risks/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-risks...
- skylan_q 11y ago
  How about the notion that we've figured out all the causal links/factors for the different kinds of cancer?
- chrisamiller 11y ago
  Many cancers really aren't avoidable, as there's a spectrum of causes. The mutations that cause cancer can come from many sources - carcinogen exposure, UV light/radiation, inherited defects, or unavoidable errors that occur when cells divide (on average, around 3 errors per cell division). Getting cancer is a lot like playing the lottery (or perhaps more accurately, Russian Roulette). It requires an accumulation of mutations in two or more key genes, and these mutations occur more or less randomly throughout the genome, regardless of cause. So maybe your first hit happens from a chest X-ray, and the second hit comes from smoking. Or maybe you just get old and the replication errors pile up in blood stem cells, giving you leukemia. The point is that it's all probablistic, and that's why some smokers live to be 100 cancer-free, and some health-nut marathoners get cancer. In general, though, these external factors can bend the odds one way or the other.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    very well said, this can be copied to all those articles about food causing/not causing cancers that seem to pop up recently. not much more is needed to know on this topic
  - erkkie 11y ago
    While still (probably) probabilistic to a large extent, specially concerning environmental exposure, there's more acceptance recently into cancer having a metabolic component, many cancer and metabolic related pathways cross (eg fasting/insulin/igf-1). So it's not necessarily just lottery, or rather, we still don't know how large of an factor the lottery part actually is.
- teekert 11y ago
  Just one example: About 12 percent of women in the general population will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives. By contrast, according to the most recent estimates, 55 to 65 percent of women who inherit a harmful BRCA1 mutation and around 45 percent of women who inherit a harmful BRCA2 mutation will develop breast cancer by age 70 years. These estimations are a bit in flux, I've heard much higher ones in the past. (http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetic...)
- ktRolster 11y ago
  >does it really mean most cancers are just not preventable? It really makes me want to go eat some bacon and cheetos.
- bhouston 11y ago
  > If 45% are preventable, then are the rest NOT? We will find out more causes of cancer as time goes on. And then more will be preventable. I am sure that environmental pollution causes are a big one that isn't included in this report -- and also various chemicals we encounter in our daily lives (soaps, etc) are likely contributing to cancer as well.
  - sliverstorm 11y ago
    Ordinary soap? That seems like a stretch.
    - bhouston 11y ago
      There are a ton of additives that have been in soaps and shampoo that can cause cancer... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cancer-dangerous-chemical-found-in-shampoos-and-soaps-082913 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cancer-dangerous-chem... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/285641.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/285641.php http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/breast-cancer-fears-over-chemical-6712286 http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/breast-cancer-fears... http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/coal-tar http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/su... And I am sure that over time there will be more things in our environments that we are regularly exposed to that will be identified as cancer causing, although it is hard to predict which ones.
entee 11y ago
It's really hard to figure out whether to trust this study, I can't find a link to anything that's been published/peer reviewed on the OP link. These kinds of epidemiological studies are incredibly difficult, and easy to get wrong. There is a good paper on this topic though: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16166.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature1...
draw_down 11y ago
Problem is figuring out which behaviors, and which foods not to eat.
- Outdoorsman 11y ago
  My guess is that we all have predispositions to developing certain types of cancer....consider the medical histories of your grandparents, parents, and siblings for (approximate) guidance... Your grandparents and parents provide a good real-world "preview" of the possibility(s) that genetic make-up might predispose one to certain infirmities, illnesses, cancers... Maybe you should be on guard against those evidenced, to the extent possible...after all, you're very much like them...? Did they live a life that eventually led to any medical conditions they experienced...? Should you avoid the life choices that they made...?
- rhinoceraptor 11y ago
  Pretty much everyone agrees on the basics: avoid white flour, sugar and processed foods. Get enough sleep, get sunlight and exercise.
  - nikolay 11y ago
    Most importantly - don't overeat and try to stick with eating within 6-8 hours a day, i.e. one or two meals only, no snacking, no liquid foods (soda, juices).
    - solipsism 11y ago
      No snacking? Not long ago the advice was to munch on healthy things throughout the day.
      - ams6110 11y ago
        The advice of yesterday is wrong today -- the way it seems to go with most food/health/lifestyle advice. For me, I live the way I want to live, and eat what I like to eat. If it shortens my life by a few years, so be it.
dawhizkid 11y ago
I always find it ironic when I see people fundraising for cancer research by selling doughnuts.
- timje1 11y ago
  The worst has surely got to be the 'Buckets for the Cure' campaign by KFC. http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b89bb6461864e_Aviary_ww5-komen-org_Picture_1.preview.jpg http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b...
- jrjarrett 11y ago
  Worse: Bake sales to raise funds for diabetes research.
mberning 11y ago
I am very curious how they can come to the conclusion that unhealthy eating (whatever that means) contributes to cancer. There is so much tied up in that statement. Let's put aside the fact that dietary guidelines for a healthy diet are dubious at best. How would they determine that a person that contraced cancer had an unhealthy diet? Did they simply look at the weight or perhaps the perennially maligned BMI? Did they rely on self reporting? Did they account for changes in diet across the entire lifetime? It is just crazy to think about all the ways that the foundation for such a claim could be faulty.
- manmal 11y ago
  Probably having more than 50g sugar per day etc? While the decade-long saturated-acid-bashing is controversial, there are things that are proven to help longevity, like eating fatty fish regularly or not eating more than you spend.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    50g sugar is like 2.5 apples.
    - IndianAstronaut 11y ago
      Fruits have been cultivated and bred towards greater sweetness. They are much sweeter than their natural ancestor.
      - saiya-jin 11y ago
        indeed, not something I like. now apple doesn't feel healthy at all, more like a giant candy (i know it's still probably healthier to eat it rather than not, but I really wish there would be types which would be less sweet)
        domas 11y ago
        I think "healthy food" is a bit misnomer: only people can be healthy or unhealthy, while food can be nutritious or not. While health of an apple is quite a different thing (apple tree disease?)
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ucaetano 11y ago
Absolutely all cancers are linked to being alive, which is an easily preventable factor.
jensen123 11y ago
I wonder how long it will take before we'll see more studies on dairy and IGF-1 and how they affect cancer. I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that the Nordic countries have some of the highest cancer rates in the world, since they also drink the most milk. Or that the people with the Laron syndrome are resistant to cancer, since (if I remember correctly) they have some sort of defect in their IGF-1 receptors. T. Colin Campbell talks a bit about this in his books (China Study etc.). I think he's correct that there is some sort of taboo against questioning dairy and protein. Edit: I should probably mention that IGF-1 is a growth hormone. Cow's milk contains a lot of IGF-1. You know, those calves are pretty small when they are born, but are supposed to grow into full-size cows. Both humans and cows have receptors for the very same IGF-1.
- jug5 11y ago
  This is why a little information is dangerous. IGF-1 is not a growth hormone. It is produced in the liver and other organs stimulated by growth hormone. IGF-1 cannot be absorbed orally, so even if as you say milk contains tons of IGF-1 (which I don't believe is true either but don't care to prove otherwise). You could drink it all you want but it's broken down in digestion and not absorbed. Also IGF-1 does not cause cancer in itself, though it may be implicated. It causes undifferentiated cell growth and proliferation, and can prevent cell death. So if you have unhealthy cells that can be cancerous, those will also be grown and proliferated. By reducing IGF-1 that can cause a decrease in cancer in the sense that you've now slowed down ALL cell proliferation, good and bad.
- erkkie 11y ago
  Also I wonder if type of dairy (fermented/processed/etc) serve as additional confounders. PS do not forget sunlight/vitamin D levels if speaking about Nordic countries specifically not just dairy. Also a known cancer risk factor.
tokenadult 11y ago
I made sure to read all the previous comments here and the article kindly submitted to open the thread before posting this comment. I see the article links to a related website[1] with interactive advice on how to reduce risk of cancer, based on the study findings. That website has a page that sums up research has been showing for years, in multiple different studies: "Research suggests that only 5 to 10% of cancers run in families. Some factors, like age, are outside our control, and some we just don’t know about yet. "The really good news is that up to 45% of cancer in Alberta is caused by factors we can control. "So while it’s not possible to completely prevent getting cancer, there are many proven things we can do to greatly reduce our risk. This is what cancer prevention is all about." As I look at the site's advice, I see Eat Healthy (I should still do a bit more to reduce calories while increasing dietary fiber from vegetables and whole grains, but I'm mostly on that already) Prevent HPV Infections (I've got this covered) Get Screened (some screening programs are useless, actually, but I participate in the screening programs with proven benefit) Limit UV Rays (easy to do in Minnesota in the winter) Live Tobacco-Free (I have always done that) Be Active (I exercise moderately every day) Maintain a Healthy Weight (I can improve on this a little) Drink Less Alcohol (I go weeks at a time without drinking at all, and have never been drunk) and control other risk factors, which I do. You could do all of this too. [1] http://albertapreventscancer.ca/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/
EvanPlaice 11y ago
Really? Half of all cancers? Really!? I would love to see a research organization attempt to come up with a single, comprehensive, complete list of all cancers first. What I read from this is, somebody was given 3/4 of a million to prove something that's already known. Moderate exercise, not having unprotected hookups with randos, and not eating shit all the time will make your body more healthy. The only thing novel sbout this study is they added, '...for cancer sufferers'.

77 points by cpncrunch 11y ago

I wonder how many places will report this with the headline: "Study finds majority of all cancers are not preventable" I can't tell exactly what this does mean... does it really mean most cancers are just not preventable? If 45% are preventable, then are the rest NOT? The risks [0] are pretty obvious. The "Other Risks" [1] are rather interesting though. [0] http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/ [1]http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-risks/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/reduce-your-risk/other-risks...

skylan_q 11y ago
How about the notion that we've figured out all the causal links/factors for the different kinds of cancer?
chrisamiller 11y ago
Many cancers really aren't avoidable, as there's a spectrum of causes. The mutations that cause cancer can come from many sources - carcinogen exposure, UV light/radiation, inherited defects, or unavoidable errors that occur when cells divide (on average, around 3 errors per cell division). Getting cancer is a lot like playing the lottery (or perhaps more accurately, Russian Roulette). It requires an accumulation of mutations in two or more key genes, and these mutations occur more or less randomly throughout the genome, regardless of cause. So maybe your first hit happens from a chest X-ray, and the second hit comes from smoking. Or maybe you just get old and the replication errors pile up in blood stem cells, giving you leukemia. The point is that it's all probablistic, and that's why some smokers live to be 100 cancer-free, and some health-nut marathoners get cancer. In general, though, these external factors can bend the odds one way or the other.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  very well said, this can be copied to all those articles about food causing/not causing cancers that seem to pop up recently. not much more is needed to know on this topic
- erkkie 11y ago
  While still (probably) probabilistic to a large extent, specially concerning environmental exposure, there's more acceptance recently into cancer having a metabolic component, many cancer and metabolic related pathways cross (eg fasting/insulin/igf-1). So it's not necessarily just lottery, or rather, we still don't know how large of an factor the lottery part actually is.
teekert 11y ago
Just one example: About 12 percent of women in the general population will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives. By contrast, according to the most recent estimates, 55 to 65 percent of women who inherit a harmful BRCA1 mutation and around 45 percent of women who inherit a harmful BRCA2 mutation will develop breast cancer by age 70 years. These estimations are a bit in flux, I've heard much higher ones in the past. (http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics/brca-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetic...)
ktRolster 11y ago
>does it really mean most cancers are just not preventable? It really makes me want to go eat some bacon and cheetos.
bhouston 11y ago
> If 45% are preventable, then are the rest NOT? We will find out more causes of cancer as time goes on. And then more will be preventable. I am sure that environmental pollution causes are a big one that isn't included in this report -- and also various chemicals we encounter in our daily lives (soaps, etc) are likely contributing to cancer as well.
- sliverstorm 11y ago
  Ordinary soap? That seems like a stretch.
  - bhouston 11y ago
    There are a ton of additives that have been in soaps and shampoo that can cause cancer... https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cancer-dangerous-chemical-found-in-shampoos-and-soaps-082913 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cancer-dangerous-chem... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/285641.php http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/285641.php http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/breast-cancer-fears-over-chemical-6712286 http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/breast-cancer-fears... http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/coal-tar http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/su... And I am sure that over time there will be more things in our environments that we are regularly exposed to that will be identified as cancer causing, although it is hard to predict which ones.

entee 11y ago

It's really hard to figure out whether to trust this study, I can't find a link to anything that's been published/peer reviewed on the OP link. These kinds of epidemiological studies are incredibly difficult, and easy to get wrong. There is a good paper on this topic though: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature16166.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v529/n7584/full/nature1...

draw_down 11y ago

Problem is figuring out which behaviors, and which foods not to eat.

Outdoorsman 11y ago
My guess is that we all have predispositions to developing certain types of cancer....consider the medical histories of your grandparents, parents, and siblings for (approximate) guidance... Your grandparents and parents provide a good real-world "preview" of the possibility(s) that genetic make-up might predispose one to certain infirmities, illnesses, cancers... Maybe you should be on guard against those evidenced, to the extent possible...after all, you're very much like them...? Did they live a life that eventually led to any medical conditions they experienced...? Should you avoid the life choices that they made...?
rhinoceraptor 11y ago
Pretty much everyone agrees on the basics: avoid white flour, sugar and processed foods. Get enough sleep, get sunlight and exercise.
- nikolay 11y ago
  Most importantly - don't overeat and try to stick with eating within 6-8 hours a day, i.e. one or two meals only, no snacking, no liquid foods (soda, juices).
  - solipsism 11y ago
    No snacking? Not long ago the advice was to munch on healthy things throughout the day.
    - ams6110 11y ago
      The advice of yesterday is wrong today -- the way it seems to go with most food/health/lifestyle advice. For me, I live the way I want to live, and eat what I like to eat. If it shortens my life by a few years, so be it.

dawhizkid 11y ago

I always find it ironic when I see people fundraising for cancer research by selling doughnuts.

timje1 11y ago
The worst has surely got to be the 'Buckets for the Cure' campaign by KFC. http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b89bb6461864e_Aviary_ww5-komen-org_Picture_1.preview.jpg http://media.onsugar.com/files/2010/04/16/5/301/3019466/0d0b...
jrjarrett 11y ago
Worse: Bake sales to raise funds for diabetes research.

mberning 11y ago

I am very curious how they can come to the conclusion that unhealthy eating (whatever that means) contributes to cancer. There is so much tied up in that statement. Let's put aside the fact that dietary guidelines for a healthy diet are dubious at best. How would they determine that a person that contraced cancer had an unhealthy diet? Did they simply look at the weight or perhaps the perennially maligned BMI? Did they rely on self reporting? Did they account for changes in diet across the entire lifetime? It is just crazy to think about all the ways that the foundation for such a claim could be faulty.

manmal 11y ago
Probably having more than 50g sugar per day etc? While the decade-long saturated-acid-bashing is controversial, there are things that are proven to help longevity, like eating fatty fish regularly or not eating more than you spend.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  50g sugar is like 2.5 apples.
  - IndianAstronaut 11y ago
    Fruits have been cultivated and bred towards greater sweetness. They are much sweeter than their natural ancestor.
    - saiya-jin 11y ago
      indeed, not something I like. now apple doesn't feel healthy at all, more like a giant candy (i know it's still probably healthier to eat it rather than not, but I really wish there would be types which would be less sweet)
      - domas 11y ago
        I think "healthy food" is a bit misnomer: only people can be healthy or unhealthy, while food can be nutritious or not. While health of an apple is quite a different thing (apple tree disease?)

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ucaetano 11y ago

Absolutely all cancers are linked to being alive, which is an easily preventable factor.

jensen123 11y ago

I wonder how long it will take before we'll see more studies on dairy and IGF-1 and how they affect cancer. I seriously doubt that it's a coincidence that the Nordic countries have some of the highest cancer rates in the world, since they also drink the most milk. Or that the people with the Laron syndrome are resistant to cancer, since (if I remember correctly) they have some sort of defect in their IGF-1 receptors. T. Colin Campbell talks a bit about this in his books (China Study etc.). I think he's correct that there is some sort of taboo against questioning dairy and protein. Edit: I should probably mention that IGF-1 is a growth hormone. Cow's milk contains a lot of IGF-1. You know, those calves are pretty small when they are born, but are supposed to grow into full-size cows. Both humans and cows have receptors for the very same IGF-1.

jug5 11y ago
This is why a little information is dangerous. IGF-1 is not a growth hormone. It is produced in the liver and other organs stimulated by growth hormone. IGF-1 cannot be absorbed orally, so even if as you say milk contains tons of IGF-1 (which I don't believe is true either but don't care to prove otherwise). You could drink it all you want but it's broken down in digestion and not absorbed. Also IGF-1 does not cause cancer in itself, though it may be implicated. It causes undifferentiated cell growth and proliferation, and can prevent cell death. So if you have unhealthy cells that can be cancerous, those will also be grown and proliferated. By reducing IGF-1 that can cause a decrease in cancer in the sense that you've now slowed down ALL cell proliferation, good and bad.
erkkie 11y ago
Also I wonder if type of dairy (fermented/processed/etc) serve as additional confounders. PS do not forget sunlight/vitamin D levels if speaking about Nordic countries specifically not just dairy. Also a known cancer risk factor.

tokenadult 11y ago

I made sure to read all the previous comments here and the article kindly submitted to open the thread before posting this comment. I see the article links to a related website[1] with interactive advice on how to reduce risk of cancer, based on the study findings. That website has a page that sums up research has been showing for years, in multiple different studies: "Research suggests that only 5 to 10% of cancers run in families. Some factors, like age, are outside our control, and some we just don’t know about yet. "The really good news is that up to 45% of cancer in Alberta is caused by factors we can control. "So while it’s not possible to completely prevent getting cancer, there are many proven things we can do to greatly reduce our risk. This is what cancer prevention is all about." As I look at the site's advice, I see Eat Healthy (I should still do a bit more to reduce calories while increasing dietary fiber from vegetables and whole grains, but I'm mostly on that already) Prevent HPV Infections (I've got this covered) Get Screened (some screening programs are useless, actually, but I participate in the screening programs with proven benefit) Limit UV Rays (easy to do in Minnesota in the winter) Live Tobacco-Free (I have always done that) Be Active (I exercise moderately every day) Maintain a Healthy Weight (I can improve on this a little) Drink Less Alcohol (I go weeks at a time without drinking at all, and have never been drunk) and control other risk factors, which I do. You could do all of this too. [1] http://albertapreventscancer.ca/ http://albertapreventscancer.ca/

EvanPlaice 11y ago

Really? Half of all cancers? Really!? I would love to see a research organization attempt to come up with a single, comprehensive, complete list of all cancers first. What I read from this is, somebody was given 3/4 of a million to prove something that's already known. Moderate exercise, not having unprotected hookups with randos, and not eating shit all the time will make your body more healthy. The only thing novel sbout this study is they added, '...for cancer sufferers'.