If we live long enough is it inevitable that we get cancer?

[ghworker2010]

I read an article where a cancer scientist ended up getting cancer. He later said:

 

"I see cancer in one way as just bad luck," he said. 

Dr xxxxx exercises. He doesn't smoke, doesn't drink and makes sure he and his family wear sunblock, in part to minimise the risk of cancer.

"But I think of it in evolutionary terms …  in a way if we live long enough it's almost inevitable," he said.''

 

Its an interesting way to look at cancer in this way.

 

If I am in late 40's what checks or testing should I do to test for cancer? A few yrs ago I had a colonoscopy and they found a 'thingy' and cut it out. I recently had another one and there were no more there.

 

I had a prostate infection 3 yrs ago and haven't had a finger up the bum since then. How often should this be done?

 

Any other suggestions or do I just sit tight and dont bother with screening as there are no symptoms?

[Sheryl]

Recommended cancer screenings are:

 

Colonoscopy: every 10 years after age 50, sooner and more frequently in people with family history of colon cancer or who have been diagnosed with pre-cancerous polyps in the past. Since it sounds like you may be in this last group, every 5 years would make sense for you (for colonoscopy).

 

Prostate: there is a lack of agreement on this as regards asymptomatic men with no history of elevated PSA. The American Urological Association recommends that PSA and  digital rectal examination (DRE), should be "offered" to asymptomatic men aged 40 years or older "who wish to be screened", which is not the same thing as advising that people be screened. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Preventive Medicine both basically recommend informing patients aged 50 and over of the pros and cons of screening and having the patient make an "informed decision". If done frequency would be every 1-2 years i.e. at each routine physical exam. The American Association of Family Physicians recommends no routine screening, full stop (i.e. no screening of asymptomatic men without known risk factors).

 

The reason for all the confusion is that elevated PSA and enlarged prostate found on DRE are often due to non-cancerous causes and have led to a lot of unnecessary biopsied which in turn carry their own risk. Personally I think the problem is not the testing but failure to make rational decisions based on what is found; doctors fear liability if they find a elevated PSA or enlarged prostate but don't do a biopsy and it later turns out to have been  cancer, and patients, even when told the odds of cancer are very low, often push for biopsy because once they know there was a finding with even a small chance of being due to cancer, they worry and prefer to be sure.

 

However I can tel you that nobody would recommend an asymptomatic man in his 40's have either a PSA or DRE. And if you are lucky by the time you are 50 there will be clearer guidelines.

 

Reverting to the title of your thread, in fact it is quite true that if anyone lives long enough they will get cancer. Has to be, because cancer results from an accumulation of gene mutations, these can have environmental causes or be inherited, but they also occur randomly in the course of cell divisions, so of course given infinite time, enough mutations will accumulate to result in cancer. Most people die of another cause before this occurs, however, but it otherwise would.

[lopburi3]

Expect there is more fact than fiction in belief many cancers are just bad luck.  That does not mean we can just say it is all up to chance, as obviously there are many known factors leading to many of our cancers but recent paper comes to this conclusion (but a grain of salt would be with more knowledge that percentage of chance would be reduced) - but it may help explain many:

Quote

.......using health records from 69 countries, they conclude that 66 percent of cancer-causing genetic mutations arise from the “bad luck” of a healthy, dividing cell making a random mistake when it copies its DNA.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-cancer-cases-arise-from-bad-luck/

[rak sa_ngop]

In addition to the PSA test I was advised to have the following 'cancer marker' tests for my annual medical:

 

AFP

CEA

CA 19-9

TSH

 

Not exactly sure what these tests are, but they add 2300 baht to the final bill.

 

Any comments Sheryl.

[Gulfsailor]

Very old people have shown resistance against most causes of death, including cancer. Even if one was to get cancer at a very old age, the cancer will grow/spread so slow that the final cause of death will likely be something else. A great aunt of mine was operated on bowel cancer at age 97, received a new hip at 103, and passed away from a stroke a few months after her 108th birthday wchich she celebrated by playing a little tennis with a celebrity tennis pro. 

[Lumbini]

One in 3 will hear the diagnosis of cancer at some point ( genes may be the bullet but lifestyle is the trigger so make activity and diet a very real opportunity or not , as they say here " up to you "

[simon43]

A great aunt of mine was operated on bowel cancer at age 97, received a new hip at 103, and passed away from a stroke a few months after her 108th birthday wchich she celebrated by playing a little tennis with a celebrity tennis pro. 

 

She could probably lived even longer if she had cut down on sex romps once she reached 100.......

 

Sorry - a joke, but kudos to your great aunt for reaching such a wonderful age and still with good health.

[Sheryl]

6 hours ago, rak sa_ngop said:

In addition to the PSA test I was advised to have the following 'cancer marker' tests for my annual medical:

 

AFP

CEA

CA 19-9

TSH

 

Not exactly sure what these tests are, but they add 2300 baht to the final bill.

 

Any comments Sheryl.

 

TSH is not a cancer marker. It is a test of thyroid function. No need unless you have symptoms suggestive of a problem.

 

AFP, CEA, CA 19-99 are "cancer markers" but of too little specificity to be useful for screening purposes (can be helpful though in  follow up of people who have been treated for a specific cancer). Not recommended as part if a routine physical checkup by any reputable health authority anywhere. Private hospitals like  these precisely because they are so non-specific...lots of "false positives" which in turn lead to lots of unnecessary scans etc because patients are scared, and doctors are also afraid in terms of  liability to not recommend further testing when these come back elevated..which is exactly why not recommended.

 

Same is true of abdominal ultrasounds which are also niot recommended for routine screening of asymptomatic people.

 

When specific symptoms are present, or a history of cancer, that is a different matter.

 

Suggest you google recommendations for routine health screening - UK NHS, Oz NHS, US Preventative Medicine Taskforce, American Cancer Society etc etc. You'll be surprised at how few tests are actually recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rak sa_ngop]

17 hours ago, Sheryl said:

 

TSH is not a cancer marker. It is a test of thyroid function. No need unless you have symptoms suggestive of a problem.

 

AFP, CEA, CA 19-99 are "cancer markers" but of too little specificity to be useful for screening purposes (can be helpful though in  follow up of people who have been treated for a specific cancer). Not recommended as part if a routine physical checkup by any reputable health authority anywhere. Private hospitals like  these precisely because they are so non-specific...lots of "false positives" which in turn lead to lots of unnecessary scans etc because patients are scared, and doctors are also afraid in terms of  liability to not recommend further testing when these come back elevated..which is exactly why not recommended.

 

Same is true of abdominal ultrasounds which are also niot recommended for routine screening of asymptomatic people.

 

When specific symptoms are present, or a history of cancer, that is a different matter.

 

Suggest you google recommendations for routine health screening - UK NHS, Oz NHS, US Preventative Medicine Taskforce, American Cancer Society etc etc. You'll be surprised at how few tests are actually recommended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the info Sheryl, I will take it on-board.

 

Yes, the TSH was for a thyroid condition I have and not cancer screening. My fault for including it in the list.

[Lumbini]

One out of 3 women and half of all men will face cancer at some point in their life . This new video addresses toxins possibly one of the biggest contributors of getting cancer and what can be done .

Dr. Connealy (Full Interview)

[partington]

On 5/1/2017 at 5:39 PM, lopburi3 said:

Expect there is more fact than fiction in belief many cancers are just bad luck.  That does not mean we can just say it is all up to chance, as obviously there are many known factors leading to many of our cancers but recent paper comes to this conclusion (but a grain of salt would be with more knowledge that percentage of chance would be reduced) - but it may help explain many:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/most-cancer-cases-arise-from-bad-luck/

Mercola and his site are not trustworthy or representative of any valid current scientific thinking about cancer or anything else. Fake medicine is the same as fake news: rampant, uncontrolled and apparently immune to truth or honesty.

 

The above Sci Am article actually points out that it is a fact that most cancers come from mistakes made in replicating DNA during cell division. This isn't at all controversial, or a matter of faith.

 

Scientists know how DNA is replicated in very great detail and can measure the the error rate in replicating DNA, that is how many mutations can be expected to occur per number of cell divisions. The physical limitations of the replication systems guarantee a determinable number of mistakes will inevitably happen.

 

Given this, the reason why cancer incidence is strongly correalated with age is obvious: the older you are, the more times each cell in your body has had to divide to replicate itself, and as there is a measurable error rate, the more times a cell has divided the more chance it has to accumulate errors in its DNA.

 

This is in addition to other environmental factors which are known to directly chemically damage DNA, such as chemicals in cigarette smoke, alcohol, ultra-violet light and radioactivity. Even in the absence of these external risks your DNA replication mechanisms will make mistakes at a low but measurable rate.

 

The surprising thing is that everyone old doesn't get it!

Edited May 4, 2017 by partington

[Lumbini]

"Mercola and his site are not trustworthy or representative of any valid current scientific thinking about cancer or anything else. Fake medicine is the same as fake news: rampant, uncontrolled and apparently immune to truth or honesty"

 

Why not listen to everyone not believing any of them until investigating everything for yourself and then use your own common common sense and good judgment to decide what's right for you . Half of science is learning what we thought was true is not . I thank Sheryl for leaving the link up because it's a good interview and very relative to this thread is it all true , is some of it true is nothing true ? I don't know but it gives me more information as I investigate this all important subject as I attempt to practice a healthy way of living doing all I can do as not to suffer unnecessarily . Genes are the bullet but possibly lifestyle is the trigger .

 

[Sheryl]

10 hours ago, Lumbini said:

" Genes are the bullet but possibly lifestyle is the trigger ."

 

 

As a blanket statement applied to all cancers, untrue. And even in cancers where  lifestyle is a factor, an oversimplification.

 

As several have tried to explain, cancer is caused by genetic mutations. It takes an accumulaton of at least several such mutations to lead to cancer.

 

Some people inherit one or more mutatuons, with the result that they will need to acquire fewer additional mutations for a particular cancer to arise. Hence the family history risk factor. A number of these mutations have been identified and can be tested for and the risk for that individual quantified.

 

Some mutations occur totally through chance in the process of cell division, unrelated to anything else -pure random occurrence. This happens to everyone  and the older you are, the more cell divisions you have undergone hence the greater the possibility of enough f the right type having happened to lead to cancer. However through sheer random bad luck this can also happen to a younger person or even a child, and in fact it inevitably will to a minority of people.

 

Lastly some mutations occur due to environmental factors (things the cells are exposed to - not necessarily the "environment" as lay people understand it) and this is where lifestyle comes in.  The connection to some sorts of exposures (e.g. smoking, Hep B/C virus, asbestos etc) is extremely strong. In other cases it is weaker and in many, all we know is that there are correllations and the actual mechanism and magnitude of risk is unclear.

 

Since the third factor is the only one we have control over, it makes sense to focus on it, but it would be very inaccurate to assume that there is a "lifestyle" factor behind all or most cancers.

 

 

[Lumbini]

"but it would be very inaccurate to assume that there is a "lifestyle" factor behind all or most cancers"

Nobody is saying it's behind ALL factors but possibly some ( smoking would be an example and many more ) so would it not be good for one to do all they can to cut the risk ?

[Sheryl]

Of course - while lifestyle changes will only partially reduce cancer risk, it is the only thing we can do as the other factors are beyond our ability to influence. And a partial reduction is risk is certainly better than no reduction.

 

Just don't have unrealistic expectations. Among other things it can lead to false complacency.

 

People vary in how far they want to go for how much reduction in risk, and the various lifestyle changes that are recommended for cancer risk reduction are not equal in that regard. Some are certain to substantially reduce risk (e.g. smoking). Many others are not known to have a cause and effect relationship at all, just known to show some correllations. 

 

Some people make it virtually a full time occupation to do things that they think will improve their health, to most others that is an extreme approach and living so preoccupied with trying to reduce the risk of illness is not a worthwhile life at all. (Though people who go to such extremes usually do so in the unrealistic belief they are "preventing" rather than "reducing the risk" of illness).  And some people go way to the other extreme, insisting on continuing with behaviors proven beyond any doubt to play a causative role in cancer or in other adverse health outcomes (driving while intoxicated..not wearing a seat belt etc).

 

There is a middle ground.

[Mucalinda]

no

[Lumbini]

Dr. Greger has been a real tool for me with his website and YouTube channel . He is about real science and has NOTHING to sell . Here is one of his hundreds of videos below [emoji652]️

#1 Anticancer Vegetable

[sirineou]

With every cell division there is a chance for a mutation.

Some mutations can be cancerous The reasons are many, genetic predisposition, environmental etc, that affect the probability.  

The more divisions , the more chances for mutations. The longer you live the more cell divisions.   

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

With every cell division there is a chance for a mutation.

Some mutations can be cancerous The reasons are many, genetic predisposition, environmental etc, that affect the probability.  

The more divisions , the more chances for mutations. The longer you live the more cell divisions.   

 

Exactly. Cancer is the result of  mutations to the genes that normally control cell growth/division. Some such mutations can be inherited, some can be acquired due to environmental factors, and some occur through sheer chance.

 

Luckily it takes more than one mutation for cancer to develop in any organ system, there are fail safe mechanisms in place but if enough mutations occur, cancer will result, and given inifinite time,  each and every one of us would accumulate enough chance mutations to lead to cancer.