12 Common Cancer Myths Debunked

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer

Numerous Americans believe a score of scientifically unproven claims about cancer, with some people thinking shampoo and underwire bras cause tumors.

A nationally representative telephone survey by the American Cancer Society of nearly 1,000 U.S. adults who had never been diagnosed with cancer revealed a surprising number agreed with inaccurate or unlikely statements about cancer risk and prevention statements.

Individuals with lower education levels were more likely to believe the myths. And men were more likely than women to be duped.

1. The risk of dying from cancer in the United States is increasing.

67.7 percent true (9.8% don't know) The remainder knew this was false

2. Living in a polluted city is a greater risk for lung cancer than smoking a pack of cigarettes a day.

38.7% true (18.8% don't know)

3. Some injuries can cause cancer later in life.

37.2% true (20.9% don't know)

4. Electronic devices, like cell phones, can cause cancer in the people who use them.

29.7% true (24.7% don't know)

5. What someone does as a young adult has little effect on their chance of getting cancer later in life.

24.8% true (7.1% don't know)

6. Long-time smokers cannot reduce their cancer risk by quitting smoking.

16.2% true (5.7% don't know)

7. People who smoke low-tar cigarettes have less chance of developing lung cancer than people who smoke regular cigarettes.

14.7% true (10.8% don't know)

8. Personal hygiene products, like shampoo, deodorant and antiperspirants, can cause cancer.

13.7% true (15.3% don't know)

9. Getting a mammogram, or using a special X-ray machine to detect breast cancer, can cause cancer of the breast.

10.2% true (16.1% don't know)

10. Getting a base tan or base coat at a tanning salon will provide protection from skin cancer when you go outside in the sun.

8.4% true (13.2% don't know)

11. Underwire bras can cause breast cancer.

6.2% true (30.9% don't know)

12. You cannot get skin cancer from using a tanning booth.

6.2% true (18.3% don't know)

The survey, reported in the Sept. 1 issue of the journal Cancer, reveals that communities most at risk for cancer were also the most likely to be misinformed.

Healthy behaviors depend partly on whether individuals can make an accurate assessment of risk factors for that disease. Unwarranted worry over unproven risk factors can distract attention from the valid risks, resulting in "risky" decisions," past research indicates.

"If people hold erroneous beliefs about risk factors for cancer they might not be making informed decisions for their behaviors," said lead study author Kevin Stein, of the American Cancer Society’s Behavioral Research Center in Atlanta.

The scientists say that individual beliefs are not the only determinants of health behavior, and other factors, such as access to health care and socioeconomic status, are also important.

However, beliefs can guide actions, they suggest. "People's attitudes and beliefs influence their behaviors," Stein told LiveScience.

For instance, misconceptions like the tobacco-related myths, which were relatively highly endorsed, can lead to risky behaviors.

"If you believe those statements [about smoking] then you can see why some people might engage in risky behavior like smoking," Stein said.

He added, "What we would like to do is to have people get accurate information and hold accurate beliefs about what are and what are not risk factors for cancer with the hope that will translate into healthy behavioral patterns."

Live Science

And

ANN ARBOR, Mich., July 26 U.S. scientists have identified a gene linked with the development of an aggressive form of breast cancer.

University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center researchers discovered the gene FOXP3 suppresses tumor growth. However, it is located on the X chromosome and a single mutation can effectively stop it from working.

That, said the scientists, is unusual, as only one other gene linked with cancer has been found on the X chromosome.

The mouse model study showed when one copy of the FOXP3 gene is silenced, 90 percent of the research mice spontaneously developed cancerous tumors.

When the researchers looked at FOXP3 in human breast tissue cells, it was found to be either deleted or mutated in a substantial portion of the cancer sample.

"FOXP3 defects promote cancer development," said study author Professor Yang Liu. "We do not know whether this is a genetic defect that puts women at higher risk. For treatment, this gene could be quite important, but for diagnosis, it's too early to tell."

The study is detailed in the journal Cell.

Copyright 2007 by UPI

Earthtimes.org

Also, it has been confirmed by a new study that the drop in HRT is linked to a drop in breast cancer rates:

New Study Reaffirms HRT-Breast Cancer Link

By Amanda Gardner

HealthDay Reporter

Tuesday, July 24, 2007; 12:00 AM

TUESDAY, July 24 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists have once again linked a drop in breast cancer rates from 2003 to 2004 to a parallel decrease in women's use of hormone therapy beginning in 2002.

The decline in breast cancer rates persisted even though mammography screening rates remained stable, said researchers at Kaiser Permanente, reporting in the August issue of theJournal of the National Cancer Institute.

"The message is pretty straightforward," said study lead author Dr. Andrew Glass, senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore. "If you need to take hormone therapy to block menopausal symptoms, do it for the shortest duration and the lowest dose."

"We now have a second observation that when we discontinue or decrease hormone therapy, we have a very significant drop in breast cancer incidence," added Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "This is another piece of information that I think women should use in determining whether or not they want to take hormone therapy. To me, it shows that combination therapy [estrogen plus progestin] does increase the incidence of breast cancer. Women need to take this into consideration."

Last December, a different set of researchers reported a precipitous drop in the incidence of breast cancer in 2003 and suggested that the downward trend was the result of millions of women discontinuing use of hormone replacement therapy.

The decline in the number of U.S. women taking hormone replacement therapy came after publication of the results of the landmark Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial in 2002. That study, involving 16,608 participants, was halted after researchers found elevated health risks among HRT users, most notably for breast cancer and stroke.

Since then, a debate has continued over the utility and safety of hormone therapy, with health officials advising women to take HRT only when needed and for as short a period as possible.

The authors of the new study reviewed the medical histories of 7,386 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and treated at Kaiser Permanente Northwest between 1980 and 2006. The records were available through Kaiser Permanente's computerized database, which includes a tumor registry and clinical, pathology, radiology and pharmacy data systems.

From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, breast cancer rates rose 26 percent, then an additional 15 percent through 2001. From 2003 to 2006, rates dropped by 18 percent.

The 26 percent increase paralleled increases in the rates of mammograms as well as increases in the use of hormone therapy, especially combination therapy, the researchers said.

The 15 percent increase -- from 1992 to 2002 -- echoed a continued rise in the use of hormone therapy, although mammogram rates remained stable from 1991 rates.

The drop in breast cancer rates starting in 2003 coincided with a 75 percent drop in hormone therapy rates, although mammography rates remained the same.

When HRT went down, breast cancer rates went down and mammography rates remained the same," Glass said. "This was an important finding, because others had suggested maybe the drop in breast cancer rates was because mammograms had gone down, but it didn't happen in the Kaiser numbers. The only thing we can figure out is, it's probably related to HRT, that fluctuations in HRT are the most likely explanation for fluctuations in breast cancer rates."

The increase in breast cancer rates occurred primarily in women over the age of 45 who had estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

According to Glass, this study is the first to document all these different factors -- mammography, hormone therapy, breast cancer and estrogen-receptor status -- in one study.

But one expert found the study's conclusions lacking.

"This is an interesting look at the picture but really is not evidence-based medicine," said Dr. Lila Nachtigall, director of the women's wellness program at New York University Medical Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine. The study did not correlate individual cases of breast cancer with hormone use, therefore issues of causality cannot be decided, she added.

"To try to prove causality is confusing to doctors and patients," she said. "I think it's a combination of things."

More information

For more on HRT, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

SOURCES: Andrew Glass, M.D., senior investigator, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Ore.; Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology, Ochsner Health System, Baton Rouge, La.; Lila Nachtigall, M.D., director of the Women's Wellness Program at New York University Medical Center and professor of obstetrics/gynecology at New York University School of Medicine, New York City; August 2007,Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Washington Post

love your avatar...

I don't know about some of your myths.. I thought some where proven eg the cell phones and the increase in brain cancer.

Plus I thought the risk of cancer in the US would be increasing based on all the genetically altered/engineered food, and hormones in animals to make them grow faster.. and the effect all these un-natural things would have on the human body over time.

Speak less of all the chemicals that are found in vegetables being irrigated with contaminated water, which people never seem to make a stink about.

Also, it has been confirmed by a new study that the drop in HRT is linked to a drop in breast cancer rates:

New Study Reaffirms HRT-Breast Cancer Link

By Amanda Gardner

HealthDay Reporter

Tuesday, July 24, 2007; 12:00 AM

TUESDAY, July 24 (HealthDay News) -- Scientists have once again linked a drop in breast cancer rates from 2003 to 2004 to a parallel decrease in women's use of hormone therapy beginning in 2002.

The decline in breast cancer rates persisted even though mammography screening rates remained stable, said researchers at Kaiser Permanente, reporting in the August issue of theJournal of the National Cancer Institute.

"The message is pretty straightforward," said study lead author Dr. Andrew Glass, senior investigator at the Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research in Portland, Ore. "If you need to take hormone therapy to block menopausal symptoms, do it for the shortest duration and the lowest dose."

"We now have a second observation that when we discontinue or decrease hormone therapy, we have a very significant drop in breast cancer incidence," added Dr. Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology at Ochsner Health System in Baton Rouge, La. "This is another piece of information that I think women should use in determining whether or not they want to take hormone therapy. To me, it shows that combination therapy [estrogen plus progestin] does increase the incidence of breast cancer. Women need to take this into consideration."

Last December, a different set of researchers reported a precipitous drop in the incidence of breast cancer in 2003 and suggested that the downward trend was the result of millions of women discontinuing use of hormone replacement therapy.

The decline in the number of U.S. women taking hormone replacement therapy came after publication of the results of the landmark Women's Health Initiative (WHI) trial in 2002. That study, involving 16,608 participants, was halted after researchers found elevated health risks among HRT users, most notably for breast cancer and stroke.

Since then, a debate has continued over the utility and safety of hormone therapy, with health officials advising women to take HRT only when needed and for as short a period as possible.

The authors of the new study reviewed the medical histories of 7,386 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer and treated at Kaiser Permanente Northwest between 1980 and 2006. The records were available through Kaiser Permanente's computerized database, which includes a tumor registry and clinical, pathology, radiology and pharmacy data systems.

From the early 1980s to the early 1990s, breast cancer rates rose 26 percent, then an additional 15 percent through 2001. From 2003 to 2006, rates dropped by 18 percent.

The 26 percent increase paralleled increases in the rates of mammograms as well as increases in the use of hormone therapy, especially combination therapy, the researchers said.

The 15 percent increase -- from 1992 to 2002 -- echoed a continued rise in the use of hormone therapy, although mammogram rates remained stable from 1991 rates.

The drop in breast cancer rates starting in 2003 coincided with a 75 percent drop in hormone therapy rates, although mammography rates remained the same.

When HRT went down, breast cancer rates went down and mammography rates remained the same," Glass said. "This was an important finding, because others had suggested maybe the drop in breast cancer rates was because mammograms had gone down, but it didn't happen in the Kaiser numbers. The only thing we can figure out is, it's probably related to HRT, that fluctuations in HRT are the most likely explanation for fluctuations in breast cancer rates."

The increase in breast cancer rates occurred primarily in women over the age of 45 who had estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

According to Glass, this study is the first to document all these different factors -- mammography, hormone therapy, breast cancer and estrogen-receptor status -- in one study.

But one expert found the study's conclusions lacking.

"This is an interesting look at the picture but really is not evidence-based medicine," said Dr. Lila Nachtigall, director of the women's wellness program at New York University Medical Center and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York University School of Medicine. The study did not correlate individual cases of breast cancer with hormone use, therefore issues of causality cannot be decided, she added.

"To try to prove causality is confusing to doctors and patients," she said. "I think it's a combination of things."

More information

For more on HRT, visit the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

SOURCES: Andrew Glass, M.D., senior investigator, Kaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Portland, Ore.; Jay Brooks, chairman of hematology/oncology, Ochsner Health System, Baton Rouge, La.; Lila Nachtigall, M.D., director of the Women's Wellness Program at New York University Medical Center and professor of obstetrics/gynecology at New York University School of Medicine, New York City; August 2007,Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Washington Post

Think it is well worth pointing out that the drop in HRT is a drop in the use of synthetic hormones, not the natural ones.

This to my way of thinking is crucial, and something that so many women do not know about.

Seems to stand to reason that a molecule which is similar to a naturally produced human female hormone rather than precisely identical, could easily cause the body problems.