Knowing the origins of cancer help to understand how it can
be treated, and in some cases, how it can be prevented. We know cancer can be caused by
exposure to harmful environments or by genes gone haywire. However, only an estimated 5-10% of
cancers have been found to have genetic components. This would leave the other 90% of cancer risk to be
attributed to the outside world. But,
cancer seems to develop in places that we do not expect, where there is less
exposure to the environment, or where there is not a direct genetic link to a
greater risk of developing cancer.
Why is this?
Tomasetti and Vogelstein think they have figured out why
cancer, some of it anyway, develops when we least expect it. Bad luck. The authors found that only one third of cancer risk can be
attributed to environmental or genetic factors. The other two thirds, just comes down to bad luck, AKA,
random mutations. These mutations
happen when a cell is dividing, and instead of going through the natural cell
life cycle, it continues to live and duplicate until there is a mass of the
same undying cell. So does this
mean that all the cells in our body have an equal chance of developing cancer,
and that we have two thirds of a chance of getting cancer?
The authors tell us not to fret, that only stem cells are
those that can eventually turn into cancerous cells. Stem cells keep our body replenished by dividing and
creating new cells when the old ones become worn out, this is how our body
renews itself. Over time, their
stock is depleted, and this is how someone gets older. When someone has less stem cells or
runs out of them, their body cannot replace things that are past their use,
leading to aging of they body and eventually death. But these can also develop into cancer cells. Not all these stem cells divide at the
same rate though, with some not dividing often, and others doing so frequently. This is where the 66% of cancer risk
comes from. By looking at the
average number of stem cell divisions in a life time they found a strong
correlation between an increased rate of cancer and a larger number of stem
cell divisions in a specific tissue.
This explained the difference between the rates of certain tissues’
cancers that would be caused by the same malfunctioning gene. One tissue’s stem cells divide more
than the other, making it more likely that something will go wrong. And as a person's cells age, they are more likely to have mutations through mistakes in cell division.
Remember though, that they found that one third of cancers
are caused by environmental factors or inherited risks. So in order to weed out the cancers
which are most likely because of these factors they constructed a variable they
called the “extra risk score” (ERS), which was the product of the lifetime risk
of cancer of a tissue and its average total number of stem cell divisions. If this number is high, this showed
that the risk of that particular type of cancer was high relative to the number
of stem cell divisions. So that
cancer was more likely to be influenced by environmental and genetic factors. And vice versa, those with low ERS were
those cancers whose risk could be attributed to the number of stem cell
divisions. Their calculations were
in line with many previous studies, which showed environmental and genetic
causes for certain cancers that had high ERS in this study.
What do we get out of all these percentages and risk
scores? Basically, that for the
average person, cancer is just a matter of chance, that a mutation happened in
one of their stem cells, and it happened to turn into cancer. This study simply shows us that out of
the risk of getting cancer in the first place (which varies based on the type),
on average, two thirds of that risk is due to random chance, just bad
luck. While this is not exactly
reassuring, it still has to be looked at critically. This study gives medical researchers, doctors, a new way to
look at treating cancer. If most
of cancers are due to random mutations that means that trying to find every
random inherited gene that causes cancer will not necessarily be the most
effective method. If two thirds of
the chance of getting cancer is random, that means that early prevention may be
the most lethal weapon (for the cancer).
By doing screenings, and checking people for cancers in places that have
a higher risk because of the higher rate of stem cell divisions, doctors can
work to catch cancer earlier and eradicate it before it becomes life
threatening. So even though this
study is a bit disheartening, we can look at it hopefully, with an eye on the
future of cancer treatment.
References
Tomasetti, Cristian, and Volgelstein, Bert. Variation in
cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions.
Science 347, 78-81 (2015).
Link: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6217/78.full
Image
Figure 1. Siegel, Rebecca, Naishadham, Deepa, and Jemal,Ahmedin. Cancer Statistics, 2013. CA Cancer Journal Clinic 63, 11-31 (2013).
I am not sure that from just these statistics make me believe that cancer is just a random event. It may seem like a random event at the time, but things in the past or the lifestyle choices you have made will certainly effect your body in the future. While this post is rather scary in saying that cancer is just random and you can't attribute it to anything, it makes me think about how many carcinogens we injest through our food and breathe in the air that we have no way of measuring or quantifying. I wonder how many of these "random" mutations really are not random at all. I think it is very possible that we just do not have the propper technology or methods to evaluate them at this point.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary to think that 2/3s of cancer cases come down to random chance. We fret so much about trying to avoid things that cause cancer, from cigarettes to Splenda, but even on our best behavior, making our best efforts to be healthy, it is still very possible we could just randomly get cancer. If it really is the case that 2/3s of cancer is caused by random chance, then I agree with Sarah that screening and catching it early, as well as developing new more effective cancer treatments, might be the best way to deal with this lethal foe.
ReplyDelete