Environment, Genes & Lifestyle
Environment, Genes & Lifestyle Saw this today
main gist of it is that environmental scientists are regularly identifying new evidence that genes, environment and lifestyle interact to increase cancer risks in some people but not in others.
I don’t know much about the Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences which have come up with this, but I think it’s the most sensible thing I’ve read for a long time. It will be interesting to see what comes out of their conference later this week
One of the arguments used by the UK Cancer Charities in dismissing synthetic chemicals as risk factors or even causes of cancer is that the the levels found in human bodies are so tiny that they could not possibly have an effect. If that’s the case, how do they explain this:
“The scenario grows more complex as multiple chemicals are introduced. A single chemical that proves safe by itself and in low doses may become highly toxic in high doses or when combined with other chemicals.”
I think that the reasons why breast cancer incidence in England has increased 80% in 1971 are these:
-
Earlier detection by screening and increased life expectancy so more people are treated for breast cancer whereas previously they might have died without knowing they had the disease.
-
Changed reproductive habits - having no children or having them later in life
-
Being exposed to a new generation of chemicals/food additives, particularly at developmental stages of life ( in the womb, at puberty), which previous generations were not exposed to.
I think points 1 & 2 definitely do have an effect, but not as much as we are led to believe. Has anyone ever seen any statistics to show the detail behind these statements so we know what proportions of the 80% increased incidence have been directly caused by these factors? I haven’t.
Point 3 is key. I think that environmental factors do not work in isolation - they interact with genes and lifestyle to affect cancer risk. Unfortunately some of us are more susceptible to these factors than others and we get cancer.
Research that concentrates only on genes and lifestyle is insufficient and blinkered. Environmental factors have to be considered too and, I don’t believe enough is being done in this area, particularly in the UK. But not surprising. Who is going to put up money for research which has a good chance of upsetting the food industry, chemical and pharmaceutical industries?
JaneRA, I know we have quite different views on environmental factors and breast cancer, but here’s some food for thought. Research into genes and lifestyle has not shed much light on triple negative cancers so far. It’s always possible that research into environmental factors could contribute to some sort of progress in that area. It’s true that it may never do so, but who knows?
Good link! Daphne,
Thanks for the link…yes a very interesting article and yes I agree that the causes of different kinds of breast cancer are very complex and yes there is an interplay between environmental, lifestyle and genetic factors. I have never thought otherwise! What I disagree with is a kind of knee jerk reaction that ‘chemicals’ are bad per se. I think I read the conclusions in the article rather differently from you…it rightly points out that particular chemicals may have a negative impact on some people, and no impact or even a preventative impact in other people. (its that old problem…do one thing and you might be more likely to get one kind of cancer, but do the opposite and you might get another kind of cancer…or heart disease or…or…or.)
The little interesting resaerch wich IS going on into triple negative breast cancer is at the level of the genetic and the biological…complicated stuff, harder to understand in layperson’s terms…not good tabloid copy. Its probably painstaking research…slow…no quick solutions here. So much easier for young scientists to develop another aromatose inhibitor than get to grips with the complexity of identifying the growth factors which stimulate triple negative breast cancers. In November 2005 an article in the Journal of Cell Science reported the discovery that the loss of a critical protein can initiate basal type tumours which are the commonest kind of triple negative bc. Its this kind of research on cells which I believe offers the way forward for research on triple negatives. Find what stimulates triple negative cancers to grow and you can start developing a targetted therapy…that’s what happend with herceptin…which is the biggest breakthrough in cancer treatment for years.
Triple negatives need that kind of breakthrough too. The Center for the Prevention and Treatment of er- negative breast cancer in the States is carrying out solid research of this kind. Genetic factors are likely to be key in triple negative breast cancer (many people with triple neg bc carry the BRCA1 gene) but these are not yet known or understood.
There’s just not enough of this kind of research going on. We need more of it…Improvements in breast cancer survival have largely happened because of improvements in treatment…but the focus of these improvements have mainly benefited those with hormone receptor positive breast cancer.
Jane