3 ms·

It's not uncommon to find that the treatment for some disease or symptom also carries a risk of causing it. Having a cell flip and become malignant is a probabi

It's not uncommon to find that the treatment for some disease or symptom also carries a risk of causing it. Having a cell flip and become malignant is a probabilistic event, and radiation only changes the probability. If you already have a malignancy, it's worth taking your chances with future cancers to cure the one you already have. Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood. Don't take this as an expert opinion, but I lean slightly against that idea. For example, the linked fact sheet notes that young girls who are treated in the chest for hodgkin's lymphoma (one of the rare types of cancers that young people get) have an elevated lifetime risk of ordinary breast cancer. That's less of a "recurrence" and more of a "second cancer". Relatedly, the types of cancer that young people get, and that old people get, aren't all that similar.
- mtdewcmu 13y ago
  That's what I meant; I didn't mean to say it had to be the same cancer. If the breast cancer was located in the same breast and same area that was irradiated (assuming the radiation was local and not systemic), that would make a strong argument that it was likely secondary to the childhood treatment. The fact that the second cancer was breast cancer isn't all that convincing by itself, because it's an all-around common cancer. My point was that it's another explanation that has to be considered. It doesn't mean the explanation you proposed could not be valid.

thaumasiotes 13y ago

> Another explanation for why survivors of childhood cancer would have a high rate of recurrence is that they were prone to getting cancer in the first place, and they carry that tendency into adulthood. Don't take this as an expert opinion, but I lean slightly against that idea. For example, the linked fact sheet notes that young girls who are treated in the chest for hodgkin's lymphoma (one of the rare types of cancers that young people get) have an elevated lifetime risk of ordinary breast cancer. That's less of a "recurrence" and more of a "second cancer". Relatedly, the types of cancer that young people get, and that old people get, aren't all that similar.

mtdewcmu 13y ago
That's what I meant; I didn't mean to say it had to be the same cancer. If the breast cancer was located in the same breast and same area that was irradiated (assuming the radiation was local and not systemic), that would make a strong argument that it was likely secondary to the childhood treatment. The fact that the second cancer was breast cancer isn't all that convincing by itself, because it's an all-around common cancer. My point was that it's another explanation that has to be considered. It doesn't mean the explanation you proposed could not be valid.