Cancer. What is it? Why are we so scared of it? And what can we do about it?
Cancer is basically the mutation of cells. Cells that divide beyond the normal growth rate for their type and that invade and kill neighbouring cells are loosely defined as cancerous, sometimes they also travel around the body via blood or lymph.
We hear alarming figures thrown around such as 1 in 3 women will contract a female cancer in their lifetime and that almost all of us can say that they have been in some way affected by cancer, either themselves directly or a loved one. It's no wonder that we are so scared of this disease. But is this accurate?
According to Cancer Research UK, there are now over 2 million cancer survivors in the UK, approximately 3.3% of the population and around 10% of those over 65 are cancer survivors. The number of diagnoses per year keeps increasing, but the so does the survival rate. The most common cancer is breast cancer, with about 550,000 current survivors in the UK today. In 2008 the mortality rate was 0.176% of the UK population. That doesn't sound so scary.
Why might cells mutate? 90-95% of cancers are caused by environmental or lifestyle factors, only 5-10% are genetic. Tobacco is the big one, we all know that, smoking is the cause of nearly 30% of all cancer deaths, 83-90% of lung cancer deaths and is also linked to cancers of the oesophagus, larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, pancreas, bladder, nasal cavity and sinuses, stomach, liver, kidney, cervix and myeloid leukaemia.
Other environmental factors that can increase the risk of cancer are UV exposure, weight, diet and infection.
But the one I really want to talk about is hormones, particularly female hormones and the "female" cancers; breast, cervical, uterine and ovarian.
Certain lifestyle choices are known to impact on our chances of contracting a female cancer. The combination oral contraceptive pill slightly increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer whilst taking the pill, but once no longer taking it the risk decreases again. However, there is a significant reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer for women who take the pill for five years, lasting for more than 20 years. And when I say significant, I really mean it: 50%. There is also a 40-60% reduction in instances of endometrial cancer (uterine cancer) for women who take the pill.
Having 7 or more children and having a first child before the age of 17 are known to double the risk of cervical cancer
The oestrogen only Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancers.
And last but by no means least, women are at 4% less risk of breast cancer for each year that they breastfeed and women who do not breastfeed at all are twice as likely to contract endometrial cancer and two thirds more likely to get ovarian cancer.
While all these figures are interesting, what I am most interested in is why. What no one seems to be saying is that cancer is thought to occur in cells that are over-stimulated, that's why the pill is so protective, it prevents ovulation and therefore gives the ovaries and uterus a rest from menstruation. Just like pregnancy and breastfeeding does. The pill basically replicates the consequences of reproduction, but in a more thorough and predictable way. It is my belief that the cells in any given part of the body are programmed to behave a certain way, according to their function and if they are not given the opportunity to perform their function as they expect then they are more likely to mutate and turn cancerous.
The ovaries expect to ovulate regularly until conception and then take a break of an average of 22 months (9 of pregnancy and 13 of breastfeeding, this is the average return of menstruation for women who breastfeed their children on demand). The breasts prepare themselves during pregnancy for lactation, regardless of the mother's intentions, the breast tissue fundamentally alters. What happens then if the mother does not breastfeed? Likewise, the cervix prepares itself for birthing a baby during late pregnancy and labour. So what are the implications for those who do not labour or who have a surgical delivery? I didn't find any statistics on that, but I'd love to know if caesarian sections carry an increased risk of cervical cancer. It certainly wasn't a risk listed on my consent form. Does some research need to be done on this?
Could we go back to a time before cancer became the single biggest health scare simply by living as our bodies expect us to?
Cancer is basically the mutation of cells. Cells that divide beyond the normal growth rate for their type and that invade and kill neighbouring cells are loosely defined as cancerous, sometimes they also travel around the body via blood or lymph.
We hear alarming figures thrown around such as 1 in 3 women will contract a female cancer in their lifetime and that almost all of us can say that they have been in some way affected by cancer, either themselves directly or a loved one. It's no wonder that we are so scared of this disease. But is this accurate?
According to Cancer Research UK, there are now over 2 million cancer survivors in the UK, approximately 3.3% of the population and around 10% of those over 65 are cancer survivors. The number of diagnoses per year keeps increasing, but the so does the survival rate. The most common cancer is breast cancer, with about 550,000 current survivors in the UK today. In 2008 the mortality rate was 0.176% of the UK population. That doesn't sound so scary.
Why might cells mutate? 90-95% of cancers are caused by environmental or lifestyle factors, only 5-10% are genetic. Tobacco is the big one, we all know that, smoking is the cause of nearly 30% of all cancer deaths, 83-90% of lung cancer deaths and is also linked to cancers of the oesophagus, larynx, pharynx, oral cavity, pancreas, bladder, nasal cavity and sinuses, stomach, liver, kidney, cervix and myeloid leukaemia.
Other environmental factors that can increase the risk of cancer are UV exposure, weight, diet and infection.
But the one I really want to talk about is hormones, particularly female hormones and the "female" cancers; breast, cervical, uterine and ovarian.
Certain lifestyle choices are known to impact on our chances of contracting a female cancer. The combination oral contraceptive pill slightly increases the risk of breast and cervical cancer whilst taking the pill, but once no longer taking it the risk decreases again. However, there is a significant reduction in the risk of ovarian cancer for women who take the pill for five years, lasting for more than 20 years. And when I say significant, I really mean it: 50%. There is also a 40-60% reduction in instances of endometrial cancer (uterine cancer) for women who take the pill.
Having 7 or more children and having a first child before the age of 17 are known to double the risk of cervical cancer
The oestrogen only Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) has been shown to increase the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancers.
And last but by no means least, women are at 4% less risk of breast cancer for each year that they breastfeed and women who do not breastfeed at all are twice as likely to contract endometrial cancer and two thirds more likely to get ovarian cancer.
While all these figures are interesting, what I am most interested in is why. What no one seems to be saying is that cancer is thought to occur in cells that are over-stimulated, that's why the pill is so protective, it prevents ovulation and therefore gives the ovaries and uterus a rest from menstruation. Just like pregnancy and breastfeeding does. The pill basically replicates the consequences of reproduction, but in a more thorough and predictable way. It is my belief that the cells in any given part of the body are programmed to behave a certain way, according to their function and if they are not given the opportunity to perform their function as they expect then they are more likely to mutate and turn cancerous.
The ovaries expect to ovulate regularly until conception and then take a break of an average of 22 months (9 of pregnancy and 13 of breastfeeding, this is the average return of menstruation for women who breastfeed their children on demand). The breasts prepare themselves during pregnancy for lactation, regardless of the mother's intentions, the breast tissue fundamentally alters. What happens then if the mother does not breastfeed? Likewise, the cervix prepares itself for birthing a baby during late pregnancy and labour. So what are the implications for those who do not labour or who have a surgical delivery? I didn't find any statistics on that, but I'd love to know if caesarian sections carry an increased risk of cervical cancer. It certainly wasn't a risk listed on my consent form. Does some research need to be done on this?
Could we go back to a time before cancer became the single biggest health scare simply by living as our bodies expect us to?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment