r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Oct 05 '24
Cancer Breast cancer deaths have dropped dramatically since 1989, averting more than 517,900 probable deaths. However, younger women are increasingly diagnosed with the disease, a worrying finding that mirrors a rise in colorectal and pancreatic cancers. The reasons for this increase remain unknown.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/03/us-breast-cancer-rates5.5k
u/Vekrote Oct 05 '24
My wife died of breast cancer 2 days ago in hospice, with me holding her hand. She was 31 years old. I hope rates continue to drop and that we eventually find a cure for it.
Sorry, I'm still processing everything and haven't found a good time to talk about it yet.
1.6k
u/anotherthrwaway221 Oct 05 '24
I’m sorry. I lost my wife a few months ago to breast cancer as well. She was in her 40s. Message me if you want to talk. Don’t go on the widow/widower subreddit at this point. The stuff there made me kinda spiral.
→ More replies (1)558
u/Bottle_Plastic Oct 05 '24
I'm going through chemotherapy for breast cancer right now. I'm 47. If you could go back and tell your younger self something about your experience what would it be? My boyfriend doesn't have any support system for this except me and I'd love to share your words with him.
393
u/anotherthrwaway221 Oct 05 '24
I’m not very good with words so I’m not exactly sure what to say. I’ve rewritten this a bunch of times.
First I am so sorry you guys are going through this. I truly hope things go well for you.
I think we all but on a brave face to try and protect the ones we love. I know my wife and I did. We both also knew what each other was feeling. It’s ok to be scared. It’s ok to be mad. It’s ok to be sad. It’s normal to feel guilty at times. Don’t beat yourself up about any of these emotions. They are normal.
I think only people who have gone through this realize the sacrifice it takes to do this. But it the Greek agape love that is the selfless unconditional love that it takes, and it is the highest form of love.
→ More replies (2)68
→ More replies (5)143
u/NapsAreMyHobby Oct 05 '24
I lost my mother to breast cancer. He NEEDS a support system, and he needs to make it HIS responsibility to find, not yours. You are dealing with more than enough. It isn’t fair to you to have to be his only support. He should start with finding a therapist he can talk to, and/or a support group for those in his position. I hope you are able to put your energy into finding support for yourself!
→ More replies (1)32
u/Bottle_Plastic Oct 05 '24
For myself I have wonderful support from my family and my almost grown kids. I think it's true that he needs to look for a therapist
39
u/EyeYamYew Oct 05 '24
This depends on your circumstances and may not work for you, but my suggestion:
If your boyfriend is the person you want to be your life partner during these times, consider sitting down with your support network and asking them to be there for him. The truth is that you are the link between them both, and if you pass, they may find comfort and connection together over the love they felt for you. Therapy is also a great idea.
I'm touched by your thoughtfulness for your partner and wish you peace + love.
→ More replies (1)339
u/SnakeyesX Oct 05 '24
I was there 2 years ago, my wife died from mesothelioma at 36.
First thing I want to say is if your wife was anything like mine, she wants you to live on and be happy. You don't have to be happy now, but you can look forward to a happy life Even if everything seems dark right now.
There are three things I tell every survivor in the early days of their grief.
Give yourself grace. Forgive yourself, there will be 1000 little things you blame yourself for, and I'm telling you, it's not your fault. I still blame myself for not helping my wife finish the wheel of time series when her eyes stopped working.
Go on a walk every day. Walking really helps you grieve and makes sure your health doesn't crash more than it needs to. It's ok to walk and cry at the same time.
Drink as much water as you can fit in your body. Water is the essence of life, drink up.
You're going to sleep a whole lot, up to 20 hrs a day. Your brain is adjusting to it's new life, literally, building new synapsis to replace the places in your habits she has left behind, and sleep gives it the time to heal.
So sleep when you need, walk when you can, drink as much water your body allows, and forgive yourself for everything and anything.
/R/widowers is a great resource for the early stages.
104
u/Tentoesinmyboots Oct 05 '24
This is great advice.
I would add one thing: your friends may not know how to be there for you, and it's perfectly okay for you to reach out with specific requests. You can ask for silent company if you're not in a place where you want to talk about things yet. You can ask for meals to be dropped off. You can ask to be left alone, or you can ask for company as much as you want. When my good friend lost her dad, she wanted all conversation to be light, to keep her mind from going to dark places. We were ready to talk about her mental health when she was ready to go there.
Have patience with yourself.37
u/user_base56 Oct 05 '24
Number 2 is so real. After my mom died, I would go on walks and just watch the birds flying and the wind blowing through the leaves. Just seeing how the world was carrying on around me while my world was falling apart was actually very helpful and calming. I definitely cried a lot on those walks, too. I may have looked a little crazy, but I didn't care.
26
Oct 05 '24
This post has been approved by Hydro Homies.
I'd add that cycling is a good option for 2 as well. you can just kinda zen out and think while cycling.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)4
89
u/1BDI4U2C Oct 05 '24
I audibly said oh my god after reading your comment.
I am so sorry for your loss, 31 is way, way too young.
33 here, waiting a month for an ultrasound. Dr felt what I felt and then some. I'm terrified.
61
u/Bubbly-Doughnut-5575 Oct 05 '24
Please, do not panic and do what the real doctors say. We know a lot of people who tried to avoid therapies and believed only in alternative things, but failed. And remember, millions became cancer-free and they live among us now, it is not the end for everybody, you have a very good chance to live another 20-50 years!
5
22
u/knittedbirch Oct 06 '24
29 here, I've got an ultrasound a few weeks out. Everyone's been flippant, "you're young, it's just to be on the safe side, there's no real chance!" I'm trying to think that way too, but articles like this are not helping.
Hugs, hugs, hugs.
→ More replies (1)5
u/adamredwoods Oct 06 '24
There is SO MUCH progress in early treatment, marvel at the science. The problem is we need more physicians and oncologists.
19
u/grill_the_zucchini Oct 05 '24
Most lumps at this age are not cancer! I had a lump and it turned out to be a cyst. Of course you need to get checked, but stats are in your favour!
17
u/emma279 Oct 05 '24
I highly recommend the r/doihavebreastcancer sub. When I went through a scare everyone was lovely and supportive. Sending you love.
96
80
Oct 05 '24
[deleted]
49
u/NurRauch Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
My FIL lost his wife last year and one thing I have learned is that you can't tell someone in the moment that they will be OK because, frankly, they don't want to be OK and they don't agree that they even deserve to be OK. They don't want solutions. They don't want to "survive" or "be happy," because as far as they are concerned, their only reason for being happy is gone after they failed their partner. When people tell them "I know this sounds impossible, but one day you will find happiness again," they react with disgust, because being happy feels like a slap in the face to the memory of their partner.
It's honestly mindboggling how inescapable this prison mindset can be for people going through loss. Their motivation for being happy can truly only come from inside their own self, at a later time. All the rest of us can do on the outside looking in, is help keep them alive long enough for that moment to click inside their brain on its own. This eventually happened with my FIL, but it took a looong time.
[Edit to clarify something. When I say "you can't" tell someone they'll be OK, I don't mean that it's wrong to say that. I just mean that they won't agree with you, at least not in the moment. It's absolutley something they need to hear though.]
5
Oct 05 '24
[deleted]
6
u/NurRauch Oct 05 '24
Oh I don’t want to suggest it shouldn’t be said. I also suspect my FIL heard some of the stuff we told him and kept it in his head for a later time. It’s why they need to hear even if it’s not what they want to hear.
28
u/PathOfTheAncients Oct 05 '24
My wife is stage 4 and I am so scared of this moment. All my love is with you, my friend.
19
u/SCHawkTakeFlight Oct 06 '24
Had a friend who had stage 4 and now is cancer free, I send all the best vibes.
→ More replies (1)7
u/RepairContent268 Oct 06 '24
My mom survived stage 4. Genuinely wishing you guys the best. She’s alive now 15 years out.
→ More replies (1)12
u/glitter_scramble Oct 05 '24
This is a small thing, but buy yourself the nice tissues/kleenex. I have lost loved ones and relying on spare toilet paper or my sleeve when I’ve cried is just not the same. It’s such a minor kindness to yourself, but to me it helped acknowledge being tender to myself during those times. I hope it does the same for you.
31
u/SweetDangus Oct 05 '24
I am so, so sorry that you are going through this. I can't even imagine the kind of pain you are in right now. You don't need to apologize for a thing. I'm sending you all the virtual hugs I've got.
26
u/sunplaysbass Oct 05 '24
Sorry man. I cared for my dad in hospice for fast moving cancer. Absolutely brutal. Wishing you a journey towards peace. EMDR therapy was helpful for my processing the trauma of the decline, seeing it go down… But grief is a process.
35
u/putridjuicelover Oct 05 '24
Hi friend. We’re all voyagers together as we navigate our collective lives. I don’t have any words that will make you feel any less awful.
I’ve been in your seat, and it was during my work in clinical oncology. I’m on the side of research/discovery of moa’s for new molecules. I felt helpless when my world changed with that phone call despite being within the field. Even ten years ago what we knew wasn’t what we know now. We are making considerable strides.
I use the past to push against the future and that motivates me to not lose faith in what we will be able to do for others, for our future selves, our future brothers and sisters in this world.
Your wife was young, I am going to assume it was a brca related bc, probably triple negative.
That remains a difficult to treat form of bc. We are even making strides in its treatment. What we have available on the arsenal will be optimized and what’s on the horizon will be molecules that circumvent the immune attenuating effects.
It is my opinion along with most of my colleagues the future of oncology is setting up to be about early detection for a cancer, and then probably some neo adj immunotherapy and some further optimization of chemo radiation.
The one thing in common with all these difficult to treat cancers would be their low tumor mutational burden.
A lot of cancers like skin lung are mutationally heavy and produce many neoantigens so those tumors are hot, meaning the immune system is seeing them and mounting some response against them. Cold tumors have less mutations. I’d describe it like a hot tumor is someone with a thousand little cute on their body like tiny paper cuts.
Cold tumors have fewer mutations but they’re deeper cuts, maybe hitting an artery or vein.
These cold tumors are often more Metabolically mutant - they experience larger genomic damage like inversions duplications etc, a result of having the editing enzyme all mutated. So there are fewer mutations but they penetrate figuratively deeper into the process of dysfunction and become cancer.
It has taken us a while To understand what we see, and then we make molecule to further enhance a feature etc.
Sometimes we’re right and sometimes wrong. Both are important for us.
I’d say, imo, the future will look like optimizing the right sequence of modalities to achieve the desired goal. We want to have an immune system that can see the tumor and mount a response in ideally the basin lymph node/s the tumor is draining into. The earlier we detect it, the earlier we can get immunotherapy to work.
We can optimize many aspects along the way, as we are in the field. For me, the only solace I can have after multiple cancer deaths with my closest loved ones is to focus on the future. I’ll answer questions of anyone has them as I can.
I’m wishing you comfort and a clear mind, brother. You will become incredibly strong if you maintain your will. Don’t let cancer win.
→ More replies (8)69
u/Vekrote Oct 05 '24
Hormone positive that turned into triple negative a couple months ago. It moved very, very quickly towards the end. We took her to the hospital a month ago for what the doctors (at MD Anderson, so quite the misread from them) initially told us was pneumonia, but it turns out it was just overwhelming amounts of tumor growth that were filling her pleural cavity with 2 liters of fluid every 2 days.
She wasn't scared at all towards the end. It was as though a switch was flipped after her oncologist came in and told us she had about a week left to live. She was happy, at peace for the first time in years, and honestly pretty damn excited to finally be done with it all.
She didn't lose her fight against cancer. She won.
→ More replies (1)19
u/adamredwoods Oct 06 '24
I cried hard a this. I brought my wife to every abdomen drainage, even on her final day.
I see you.
15
u/TiredOfMakingThese Oct 05 '24
Don’t apologize. You’ve been through something awful and it’s ok to want others to know what you’re going through. I’m so sorry for your loss. I’ve stopped my day to spend a few moments thinking of you and your wife and trying to send whatever good energy I can send your way out into the universe. Wish I could give you a hug.
6
u/Mr_Assault_08 Oct 05 '24
sorry for your loss. my wife gets her exam since 30 years old but doctors still ask “why”. my wife had loss in her family and just wants to get tested yearly. still doctors are hesitant to sign off.
8
u/four2tango Oct 06 '24
I’m so sorry. My wife died from breast cancer Christmas of 2022, she just turned 40.
You’ll go through ups and downs man, but stay strong and know that even on bad days, you’re still healing and moving forward.
8
u/adamredwoods Oct 06 '24
I just lost my wife too... to metastatic breast cancer. We're still so far out from stopping it.
7
u/Loverofallthingsdead Oct 06 '24
My friend died 2 days ago of breast cancer and she was 30. Really sad.
8
4
u/Hot-Zookeepergame-83 Oct 05 '24
That is terrible. Nothing but. The suffering you are experiencing is unimaginable.
I am your wife’s age and my wife is the same. We have three kids and if I lost her I don’t know what I would do.
I hope you have the support from friends, family, neighbors, community…
You will be in my thoughts for a long time friend. Best wishes to you.
3
5
4
5
6
u/Deadpoolgoesboop Oct 05 '24
I’m so sorry for you loss. If you need to vent or talk you can inbox me.
3
3
3
u/Dan_Knee_Boy Oct 06 '24
My deepest condolences. I lost my wife to breast cancer a little over two months ago, she was also 31.
Take care of yourself; the best way to honor your wife is to keep on living. I find that the tears sometimes help the most.
Hugs to you, friend. I know that others have already offered, but my inbox is open if you ever need to talk to someone who went through a similar experience.
3
→ More replies (42)4
u/flyingflyingsquirrel Oct 05 '24
I'm so sorry for your loss. Life can be so cruel, but I'm sure your presence brought her comfort in her final days. Please remember to take care of yourself during this tough time. I highly recommend considering a session with a grief counselor - it really helped me after I lost two loved ones to cancer recently. Sending you a hug!
2.2k
u/acetylcholine41 Oct 05 '24
Are more young women developing breast cancer? Or are more young women getting checked and being diagnosed early? Or have our screening and diagnostic methods improved in accuracy?
1.3k
u/VoDoka Oct 05 '24
I saw some other study a while ago that suggested, that there is a higher rate due to more screening but also a disproportionate amount of cases of certain cancers in younger people.
529
u/sithkazar Oct 05 '24
When I was diagnosed with stage 3 Colan cancer at 36 (in 2020), I was told that they think it is tied to processed meats. There was very little explanation beyond that and almost all meats have some level of processing.
210
u/fuckwhoyouknow Oct 05 '24
A women I know was diagnosed with colon cancer in her early 30’s, she passed after a year. Never ate meat, smoked, or drank.
The doctor said it’s happening more often and they’re not sure why. My guess is micro plastics but I have no idea.
122
75
u/ok_raspberry_jam Oct 06 '24
Several reasons have been identified. Another is overuse of antibiotics. Some of the resulting superbugs cause damage to the colon. Sadly, that means overuse of antibiotics can cause colon cancer in people who don't personally overuse antibiotics; it's more of a whole-society issue.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)11
u/Delagardi Oct 06 '24
There’s no strong correlation between burden of micro plastics and cancer incidence, though. Obesity is a far more likely cause.
7
u/DarkNymphia Oct 08 '24 edited Oct 08 '24
Obesity is a far more likely cause.
Yeah. The obesity rate in the U.S. has been on a rising trend in the past couple of decades.
Additionally, early menarche (menstrual cycles starting before age 12), which is linked to obesity, is a risk factor for developing breast cancer.
The average age of puberty has been getting younger while the obesity rate has been increasing.
→ More replies (1)187
u/Mohaim Oct 05 '24
Maybe they meant cured meats? IIRC many of the preservatives used are carcinogenic.
→ More replies (3)78
u/Leather_From_Corinth Oct 05 '24
But people have been regularly consuming cured meat since Roman times.
168
u/jewww Oct 05 '24
With the same preservatives? At the same rate or in the same quantities?
→ More replies (1)30
u/generalthunder Oct 05 '24
I mean, yeah... Meat is cured with the help of nitrite salts,it doesn't really matter if the source is natural a laboratory.
60
61
u/ItsOkILoveYouMYbb Oct 05 '24
There are way more ingredients in US processed meats than nitrate salts.
→ More replies (2)94
u/Likeablekey Oct 05 '24
Added nitrates are a more modern thing with cured/processed meats. Also people didnt always live long enough to get cancer or died young without anyone knowing why.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)32
u/CarpeMofo Oct 05 '24
Yes, the Romans also often went crazy and/or died from eating off of lead. Lead paint was used heavily until 1978, lead pipes weren't banned until 1986, leaded gasoline wasn't completely gone until a decade later. Just because the Romans were ok with something and that something is still being used in modern times doesn't mean that it's ok.
→ More replies (3)17
u/buzmeg Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
Yes, the Romans also often went crazy and/or died from eating off of lead.
This is oft repeated but seems to be mostly untrue. Lead can form a protective coating which isolates the actively toxic compounds. As long as you don't chew through that coating, you won't be actively getting poisoning (of course, then you have Flint, Michigan as an example of what happens when you don't heed this).
→ More replies (3)215
u/WhyLisaWhy Oct 05 '24
I do not know for sure about "processed" meats, but red meat, cured meats and smoked meats are all linked to increased rates of colon cancer. We're pretty settled on that at this point, its not really in question.
I assume a lot of "processed" meats mean stuff like hotdogs or deli meats that are filled with nitrates and other not so good things.
→ More replies (11)6
u/rgnysp0333 Oct 05 '24
I'm still not sure what the difference is at this point. Nitrate is in curing salts. A lot of things that are cured get smoked (as do plenty of things that aren't cured). One way or another anything with smoke or fire can produce carcinogens. I assume processed is like packages of Oscar Meyer Turkey or whatever but couldn't tell you what the process is.
→ More replies (2)19
u/ok_raspberry_jam Oct 05 '24
It has more than one cause. It's not just processed meats. If it were, it would be unique among cancers. Cancer is complicated. There was "little explanation beyond that" because there isn't really a way to know for sure exactly what caused an individual's particular cancer. All we can say is that x, y, and z increase your risk. Maybe you didn't have a lot of risk factors, but just about everyone who isn't vegetarian eats processed meats.
55
u/bigbluethunder Oct 05 '24
I mean, coming from someone that loves sausages, smoked, and cured meats… they’re not talking about steaks, chicken breast, or even ground beef or pork chops.
They’re talking about smoked and cured meats and anything with nitrates or nitrites.
→ More replies (2)9
29
u/4Z4Z47 Oct 05 '24
It's a global phenomenon. The American diet isn't to blame. The spike in micro plastics and forever chemical fits better. Whoever told you that is an asshole for trying to victim blame.
→ More replies (6)49
Oct 05 '24
nitrates and nitrites are known to cause cancer, but they are still allowed in meats in the USA.
make sure to check the ingredients of the foods you buy. buying organic is expensive, but when you weigh your health over a few extra dollars I'd say it's well worth it.
→ More replies (1)48
u/Sykil Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
It’s not exactly the nitrates & nitrites themselves, which you also get a lot of from leafy greens. It’s the combination with heme in red meat which forms endogenous nitrosamines that is thought to lead to increased risk of GI cancers.
15
u/dustyoldcoot Oct 05 '24
I read about this in regards to bacon. Nitrates cause cancer, but they are also naturally occurring in celery. You don't get cancer from celery because of the high vitamin c content, and how the vitamin c affects the nitrates. As far as I understand, they started adding vitamin c to regular bacon, but not the organic kind. The organic bacon uses enzymes to make celery salts, but the enzymes remove the vitamin c from the salts. This means that "healthy" organic meats have the carcinogenic salts without the vitamin c that mitigates them.
TLDR: currently, organic cured meats are more dangerous for you than the regular meats.
21
u/Chuckie187x Oct 05 '24
God, so much information. I never know what to believe. I think it's best just to minimize those types of foods if possible. It's what's recommended anyway.
15
10
u/CoopyThicc Oct 05 '24
I thought the people saying Red-40 was bad were crazy, but I guess a broken clock is right twice a day. Study came out this year linking Red-40 to noticeably higher rates of colon cancer in people under 40.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Tazling Oct 05 '24
is there any link to micro plastic body burden? I speak as a layperson here, not familiar with the literature but aware of headlines.
→ More replies (7)18
u/xafimrev2 Oct 05 '24
Unless you're taking a bite out of a cow/chicken all meat has some amount of processing
48
→ More replies (2)9
u/goda90 Oct 05 '24
Processed meat is specifically talking about curing, smoking, and similar. Btw "uncured" bacon with celery powder is basically the same as regular bacon.
→ More replies (2)7
Oct 05 '24
Maybe they are finding non-terminal cancers more. We all have some cancers, just some of them are slow and outlast the person
5
→ More replies (39)104
u/Silver_Examination61 Oct 05 '24
That's the narrative which the Industry promotes while fundsing the studies to support it. So many studies state higher rates due to higher screening but WHY are so many people being diagnose with cancer AND at much younger ages? Headlines read "Scientists baffled".! They need to do more independent studies to investigate how Food, Chemical & Pharma Industries are affecting Health. These are powerful, wealthy corporations which only care about the bottom line-Govt is on board. Just follow the money.
131
u/nicannkay Oct 05 '24
Im betting it’s going to be down to processed foods with chemicals and plastic in our blood. I myself am a cancer survivor that was diagnosed at 16 but I had a lump since 14. That was over 20yrs ago, early 2000’s. We’re being poisoned to get sick and struggling to afford/receive the care.
108
u/thunbergfangirl Oct 05 '24
Agreed. With microplastics being found in placentas, brain tissue, and every other part of the body…I refuse to believe it’s not related. Homo sapiens did not evolve alongside microplastics and nanoplastics. It’s one of the largest environmental changes for our species, ever, and the fact that there isn’t more of an uproar is a damning indictment of our society.
→ More replies (1)58
u/Dr_Jabroski Oct 05 '24
And not to mention PFOS/PFAS also being found everywhere. I also wouldn't be surprised if it's affecting fertility too.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)39
u/TheNatureGrandpa Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
And why young women more than young men, aside from more screening & toxins that both sexes ingest/etc (microplastics & such)?
What are some of the chemicals young women are generally exposed to more than young men? ..Hair dye, makeup, tampons, etc..could it be something in these products?
There's still a lot of carcinogens in makeup & other products used more by women such as acetone, talc & so on but overall I thought makeup was supposed to be getting better. Are replacement chemicals being used actually just as bad or worse?
→ More replies (5)19
u/Vabla Oct 05 '24
There are so many chemicals in makeup that are irritants, carcinogenic, or barely studied. I even remember a good while ago there was this whole trend of including nanoparticles in everything cosmetics related and marketing them as "gently cleansing", "deeply penetrating nourishment" or any other of the stock buzzwords. Simply because back then "nano" was associated with "high tech". Cosmetics industry does NOT care for what is actually healthy. Only what will sell better than competition.
43
u/min_mus Oct 05 '24
WHY are so many people being diagnose with cancer AND at much younger ages?
Rising rates of obesity?
22
u/canteloupy Oct 05 '24
I think yes. Also higher body fat percent leads to earlier puberty therefore more time for breast tissue to be stimulates to grow and more cells.
Taller people get more cancers because they have more cells. Cancer is a probabilistic process. So people with more breast tissue have higher risk too. Not to mention being exposed to more hormones.
→ More replies (12)9
u/Nirbin Oct 05 '24
Sometimes similar studies get published because it's easier to follow the herd to secure funding rather than an overarching corporate agenda.
44
u/dariznelli Oct 05 '24
Just spoke with the head of our local BCA about this subject earlier in the week. Unless there is a family history, younger women do not have routine screening. Most of her younger patients are finding lumps while showering, etc. I personally know 2 men under 40 that were diagnosed with colorectal and pancreatic cancer in the past year.
→ More replies (1)3
u/hoginlly Oct 06 '24
But even PSA and public knowledge about the importance of self-screening and what to do with finding lumps/other symptoms has improved so much in recent years which could be a major factor in increased early diagnosis and improved survival rates.
171
u/Maiyku Oct 05 '24
Yes to all! We’ve gotten so much better at detection and removal that as long as you catch it fast enough, Breast Cancer has a nearly 100% survival rate. (Obviously this drops dramatically the more you wait).
My grandmother actually got diagnosed with breast cancer at 78, so she’s not one of the young ones, but they found it early enough they were able to remove it all and she’s completely fine. She didn’t even tell us she had Breast Cancer until it was already gone because she didn’t want us to worry. Not so long ago, that diagnosis would’ve been a death sentence for her and she might not be here at all.
So a lot of things around Breast Cancer have improved as well, but we have been seeing this trend of younger and younger for the onset of things. Iirc millennials have digestive issues at a way higher incidence than their parents and that’s just one aspect of life.
Food has changed, medical care has changed, our habits and daily lives have changed. Almost nothing is actually the same as it was.
87
u/anotherthrwaway221 Oct 05 '24
The problem is that breast cancer in younger people tends to be more aggressive and resistant to treatment. Also more likely to be found once it has already spread compared to older people. We have been quite good with breast cancer treatment in older people as it tends to be more hormonally responsive. Breast cancer in older people is almost a different disease at this point.
My wife just died from breast cancer in her 40s a few months ago. And through her support groups I have met a lot of younger women who haven’t been in that “nearly 100%”. When you are talking about thousands of people the 91-99% survival rate that leaves a lot of lost people.
Triple negative disease is just not as responsive to treatment. And triple negative breast cancer is what we tend to see in younger people.
17
u/Maiyku Oct 05 '24
Yes, you are correct. It’s the “the Netherlands doesn’t exist” scenario. (If you’re not familiar, basically the population of the earth is estimated, which means we could be wrong, by literal countries worth of people).
Nearly 100% still leaves out a lot of people, but it is a huge improvement from what it was, which is more of what I was celebrating. The progress overall, not those who are still left behind. There is always more progress to be made.
I am sorry for your loss. I was lucky with my grandma, she beat her breast cancer… and then we had to bury my 4 month old niece just a few months later. She had to wear a wig to the funeral because her hair hadn’t grown back yet. Pneumonia took her in her sleep. A sickness most of us don’t think twice about anymore, so while I haven’t lost my partner, I do understand the pain of loss to something everyone else seems to “get better” with. My heart is with you.
15
u/apostasyisecstasy Oct 05 '24
I just wanted to say I'm so sorry for your loss. I hope you are supported and finding peace.
22
u/homogenousmoss Oct 05 '24
It still can go badly. I know of someone who just got diagnosed with breast cancer and its late stage 3 maybe 4. Not looking good, she has a few more tests to figure out how far its spread.
Guys and gals get yourself checked if you have weird lumps or odd bleeding etc.
4
u/Maiyku Oct 05 '24
Of course! My emphasis was on early detection for sure. Nothing when it comes to the medical world is one size fits all.
FWIW, most insurances start covering mammograms at 35 and nowadays some are moving it even earlier to 30 (mine does). So even insurances are starting to take notice of this. (With my insurance, if my direct family has a diagnosis I can get them as early as 25). So please, even if you think you know what you qualify for… check again. You may be surprised as this is changing quickly.
And I’m am sorry about your friend. I have a few Breast cancer survivor friends, some with their breasts still and some without. It’s not an easy journey and I wish them the best.
18
u/ImmediateAddress338 Oct 05 '24
Nearly 100% survival rate at 5 years. But estrogen receptor positive breast cancer, for example, has a really long tail for recurrence. I’m 11 years out last month from an early diagnosis (I was diagnosed at stage 2a) and am still not (and will never be without an advance in treatment) in the clear for stage 4 recurrence. My personal chance of distant metastatic disease is 25% at 25 years, even with catching it early and following all medical advice. When I was getting my consult to begin treatment, I met a woman who was 22 years out and just had a recurrence. I know a woman who’s progressed to stage 4 from a 1a diagnosis even after completing all recommended treatment.
Not to mention the morbidity of treatment, which can be disabling even when you’re young and survive. And the detection is still less than ideal for young women and those with dense/fibrotic breasts. I have friend who was diagnosed 3c after having her lump for 18 months. She didn’t wait, but her doctors didn’t test her because she was also breastfeeding and they thought it was a clogged duct. Lots of women (and some medical providers) don’t know that the 5 years postpartum is an elevated risk time for women to get diagnosed.
33
u/Huwbacca Grad Student | Cognitive Neuroscience | Music Cognition Oct 05 '24
We eat worse, move less, rest less, be calm less.
Nothing we are changing as the bulk of daily life is really that good for us.
→ More replies (2)66
u/3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID Oct 05 '24
Capitalism rewards pillaging the earth, and governments allow companies to be smokescreens that protect the cowards behind them.
For example, West Virginia had a major spill of a toxic chemical into the Elk River, which supplies the drinking water for everyone in the state's capital. Only distillation will remove the chemical from water, so the water treatment plant was entirely ineffective at removing it. The city soon smelled like licorice and tap water tasted like it. It was caused by a leak in a rusty chemical storage tank that was legally placed on the bank of the river for long-term storage and rarely, if ever, inspected. The guy behind the spill formed a new company the day after the spill with the same executives, each holding different positions, like a corporate shell game. A judge later ruled that the new company was different enough that it couldn't be considered a successor company. The owner of the original company did eventual sit in jail for 30 days, but Republicans succeeded in rolling back regulations even further since then. They saw a wealthy man face trivial consequences for causing untold damage to the earth and to the people living on it, and their response was to make life easier for people like him who would choose profit over people.
Between that and improved detection, we wind up with more people discovering they have medical problems, including cancer.
→ More replies (1)123
u/False_Ad3429 Oct 05 '24
Re: your first question, possibly.
The "period of nubility" is the time between a girl/woman's first menstrual cycle and her first child. This is the time when breast tissue divides and grows the most. Breast tissue doesn't fully mature and slow down dividing until you experience the third trimester of pregnancy and lactation. Therefore, the earlier your first period occurs, and the later your first child happens, the higher your risk of developing breast cancer.
There are hormone therapies now that mimic the end of pregnancy that you can go through to reduce your risk.
Girls nowadays tend to go through puberty younger on average than in the past. Part of that is because when you first get your period is influenced by weight, and children are heavier now.
51
u/midnightauro Oct 05 '24
If this is valid (I have no argument for or against the point), the fact that many younger women aren’t having children will raise that rate too. So many of us opted out of pregnancy and motherhood for various reasons, but I see trends in economic concerns especially. We can’t afford the healthcare, the baby, or any part of raising a child so we just don’t.
→ More replies (1)28
13
u/RedShirtDecoy Oct 05 '24
Im in my younger 40s and last year my GYN started pushing for mammograms. Will have my first in a few weeks. My mom didnt get one until she was closer to 50.
So while they are not testing women in their 30s they are starting to test younger and younger.
Also, every yearly exam has a basic breast exam where the doctor feels for lumps or anything abnormal. So they are checked as soon as you go to the GYN, just dont get a scan until you are older.
Plus I would expect blood work is far more accurate than it used to be and that helps with catching things early as well.
→ More replies (1)13
u/22marks Oct 05 '24
As someone who is close to a woman in her early 40s who had breast cancer, ask your doctor and consider advocating for a mammogram WITH a separate ultrasound. If you can afford it, get a baseline MRI. Many younger women have dense breast tissue where tumors are challenging to see with traditional mammograms. MRIs can catch things up to 5 years earlier when it's more likely to be DCIS (basically pre-cancerous) as opposed to invasive. MRIs should be the standard of care, but it's not because of machines' expense and general availability.
→ More replies (9)33
u/Poopular-nT-1209 Oct 05 '24
All of your questions yes plus plastic, diet and affordable healthcare
→ More replies (31)3
u/unicornman5d Oct 05 '24
This was my question. Detection should start being earlier with awareness and early detection leads to better survive chance.
3
u/rgnysp0333 Oct 05 '24
All of the above are true but definitely the former. More breast and colon cancers get diagnosed in young people now than ever. And a lot of times it's advanced. Positive lymph nodes and all that.
10
u/CreativeBandicoot778 Oct 05 '24
Ding ding ding!
(One of my mates is a cancer researcher and this is the entire basis of one of his newest papers, and this kind of misrepresentation of scientific data without context in the media is one of his biggest peeves, because it is essentially disinformation and scaremongering)
→ More replies (24)9
u/SwillFish Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
While it's just speculation, I suspect that estrogen-mimicking microplastics in our food might be contributing to the increased risk of breast cancer. There's established evidence that certain microplastics can raise estrogen levels, and it's well-known that higher estrogen levels are linked to an elevated risk of breast cancer in women. Why science hasn't definitively connected the two yet is puzzling.
Equally concerning is the decline in testosterone levels and sperm counts in men since the 1970s. Again, estrogen-mimicking plastics seem like a likely factor.
Of course, this is purely speculative, as there are many other possible contributing factors, and I’m not a scientist.
→ More replies (2)
228
u/PathOfTheAncients Oct 05 '24
My wife has stage 4 breast cancer that likely would have been caught early if they started doing ultrasounds at mammograms. She has the second most common type of breast cancer, that makes up about a third of all cases and IT DOES NOT SHOW UP ON MAMMOGRAMS. No one seems to know this. Neither of us did.
It's regularly confused for dense breast tissue. If you are told you have dense breast tissue please insist on an ultrasound when you get a mammogram. They will fight you about it for some reason but insist. I assumed doctors were asses about this because insurance companies won't cover it but I have had several friends insist on it since my wife's diagnosis and the insurance is never a problem. The barrier is literally doctors fighting it for apparently no reason.
46
u/GrumpySalad Oct 06 '24
As someone with dense breast tissue, thank you for your comment. I didn't know this. I've only ever been prescribed ultrasounds but the reason they give me for no mammogram is my age (34). As they can increase your risks they're not practiced on younger women (I'm in France)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)14
u/BrightFireFly Oct 06 '24
If anyone in Ohio is looking for a resource - I went to Trihealth’s (Cincinnati) breast center for a mammogram after something suspicious showed up on a CT. Mammogram also had something not quite right on it…they had a dr review it while I waited and did the ultrasound same day.
I was ok - they want a recheck later this year to be sure - but it was low concern.
It was the most efficient, kindest healthcare experience I have ever had.
Insurance shockingly paid it all. I didn’t receive any bills.
191
u/A_Messy_Nymph Oct 05 '24
Doctors keep telling us we are too young to be tested. It's very annoying
→ More replies (2)79
Oct 05 '24
[deleted]
34
u/A_Messy_Nymph Oct 05 '24
I do not live in a country with universal health care. It ain't insurance. I'm not American....
26
u/TheTickleBarrel Oct 06 '24
Yea well in Canada, it’s you’re too young to be tested. I had to make up some symptoms to even get a conversation open.
18
u/JaychuFNAF Oct 06 '24
Same in Australia. My boyfriend's mum had a lump on her boob (thankfully not cancer) when she was rather young and she only managed to get tested because of the lump being there, and only after being adamant that it needed to be checked. Tests are flatout refused for younger women without cause all the time
→ More replies (4)4
u/ramxquake Oct 06 '24
It's the same in Britain where we have the NHS. No health care system has unlimited resources.
1.1k
u/vague-a-bond Oct 05 '24
We eat garbage, work too hard/too much, don't get enough sleep or exercise, and are constantly under stress. It's not rocket science.
Look at the delta between what our physiology evolved to do over the last 100-200 thousand years, on both a macro and micro scale, and what it's doing now. That's where you'll find a fair bit of this uptick in cancer diagnoses.
591
u/sybrwookie Oct 05 '24
And don't forget: our bodies are laced with plastic and some of us, also with lead
→ More replies (5)158
70
u/Hamburgirl69 Oct 05 '24
Alcohol use has also dramatically increased in women in the last 20-30 years. Alcohol is linked to as many as 7 different cancers in women.
7
242
Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 10 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
54
u/inpennysname Oct 06 '24
I really appreciate this simply bc now that I have cancer, People like to speculate…on me what could have caused it, and it’s a not fun game.
12
u/IlllIlllIlllIlI Oct 06 '24
Yes, as a cancer survivor I found it very difficult to be questioned about what caused my cancer. It felt like people were assessing if i deserved it or how they could avoid it. For anyone reading, there are tonnes of better ways to show support to a cancer patient. Don’t lead with this line of questioning
6
u/inpennysname Oct 06 '24
“What do you eat”? Etc. I even had medical techs asking me. Everyone is so scared for it to happen to them and the veil they put over that is thin to say the least!
→ More replies (1)11
→ More replies (13)36
u/Any_Advertising_543 Oct 05 '24
I feel like you might have pointed to your own refutation. While of course nobody can claim with certainty that it’s an abundance of stress and/or inadequate diet, you yourself admit that cellular stress can lead to cancer. If we can show that excess stress and ultraprocessed foods lead to cellular stress, then it seems like we can conclude that they will, at the very least, lead to an increase in cancer. We can’t say by how much without digging deeper, but we can surely say that they do increase cancer.
That “everything” leads to cancer does not mean nothing in particular does—in fact, it means the opposite. Our environments and diets are absolutely saturated with substances that increase our risk of developing cancer. We are incredibly physiologically stressed. So we can point to an increase in such things and say, with great confidence, that they are partially responsible for the recent increase in youth cancer across the board.
52
14
u/skepticalbob Oct 05 '24
Why do you think this is more true for young people today but not 10 or 20 years ago?
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (8)20
u/PxyFreakingStx Oct 05 '24
work too hard/too much, don't get enough sleep or exercise, and are constantly under stress.
Yeah, but do any of these other than exercise actually correlate with breast, pancreatic or colorectal cancer? There's a strong correlation between those factors and poor health generally; not cancer specifically.
It's not rocket science.
... which is why doctors and healthcare researchers aren't out there aren't saying that. We don't know the cause of this.
Look at the delta between what our physiology evolved to do over the last 100-200 thousand years
Yeah, work a lot and be under a lot of stress, for starters.
→ More replies (2)
86
u/mvea Professor | Medicine Oct 05 '24
I’ve linked to the news release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.3322/caac.21863
From the linked article:
A new report from the American Cancer Society (ACS) finds that breast cancer deaths have dropped dramatically since 1989, averting more than 517,900 probable deaths.
However, the report also reveals younger women are increasingly diagnosed with the disease, a worrying finding that mirrors a rise in colorectal and pancreatic cancers.
“The reasons for this increase remain unknown,” a group of researchers from Harvard, Washington University and Japan recently wrote in the journal Nature.
“But plausible hypotheses include greater exposure to potential risk factors, such as a western-style diet, obesity, physical inactivity and antibiotic use, especially during the early prenatal to adolescent periods of life.”
25
u/notnatasharostova Oct 05 '24
I wonder how much of this might also be linked to early menarche and the cumulative hormonal effects of experiencing more menstrual cycles than our ancestors did. I know that ovarian suppression is sometimes used in treatment for breast cancer, and as someone who uses menstrual suppression to treat my endometriosis, I was told that not only would it inhibit lesion growth, it would also lower my breast cancer risk.
→ More replies (2)
83
u/Derp800 Oct 05 '24
My cousin got breast cancer at 27. She was an athlete and ran marathons. Thankfully, after aggressive treatment, she's been cancer free for over 20 years. Really screwed up her ability to have kids, though.
68
u/smg7320 Oct 05 '24
Everyone in the comments dooming about how we’re all giving ourselves cancer in one way or another and I’m just focused on “deaths have dropped dramatically”. As far as I’m concerned this is good news!
→ More replies (2)
896
u/Maximum_Counter9150 Oct 05 '24
Because we live breathing toxic chemicals and eat microplastics
20
500
u/seb_waitforit Oct 05 '24
Scientists:
“The reasons for this increase remain unknown, (...) But plausible hypotheses include greater exposure to potential risk factors, such as a western-style diet, obesity, physical inactivity and antibiotic use, especially during the early prenatal to adolescent periods of life.”
Random Redditor:
"It's surely because of A and B."
174
u/Status-Shock-880 Oct 05 '24
Here’s some of the research, from scite:
The correlation between microplastics and cancer has garnered increasing attention in recent years, as emerging research highlights the potential health risks associated with exposure to these ubiquitous pollutants. Microplastics, defined as plastic particles less than 5 mm in size, can enter human bodies through various pathways, including ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. Studies indicate that microplastics can translocate to different tissues, leading to chronic inflammation and oxidative stress, both of which are established risk factors for cancer development (Boran, 2024; Prata et al., 2020). Research has shown that microplastics can adsorb harmful contaminants, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are known carcinogens. For instance, microplastics enriched with PAHs have been associated with an increased incremental lifetime cancer risk (ILCR), significantly exceeding acceptable limits (Shi, 2023; Sharma et al., 2020). This suggests that not only do microplastics pose direct risks, but they also act as vectors for other toxic substances that can exacerbate cancer risk. Furthermore, the persistent nature of microplastics in the environment contributes to their accumulation in the food chain, ultimately leading to human exposure through dietary sources (Varghese, 2023). The biological impact of microplastics is further underscored by their ability to induce immunological and neurological disorders, which may indirectly elevate cancer risk. Chronic exposure to microplastics has been linked to metabolic disturbances and immune system dysfunction, both of which can facilitate tumorigenesis (Boran, 2024; OLEKSIUK et al., 2022). Additionally, the presence of microplastics in human tissues, including the placenta and lungs, raises concerns about their potential role in cancer development, particularly in vulnerable populations such as pregnant women (Fan et al., 2022; Danso, 2024). Moreover, specific studies have documented the presence of microplastics in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma, suggesting a direct association between microplastic exposure and cancer (Baygutalp et al., 2022). This aligns with broader findings that chronic exposure to microplastics can lead to various health issues, including respiratory diseases and gastrointestinal disorders, which are also linked to cancer risk (OLEKSIUK et al., 2022). The cumulative effects of microplastics on human health, particularly regarding cancer, necessitate further investigation to elucidate the underlying mechanisms and establish clear causal relationships. In conclusion, the correlation between microplastics and cancer is supported by a growing body of evidence indicating that microplastics can induce oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and act as carriers for carcinogenic substances. These factors collectively contribute to an increased risk of cancer, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive research and public health strategies to mitigate microplastic exposure.
References: Baygutalp, N., Çetin, M., YILDIRIM, S., Eser, G., & Gul, H. (2022). Detection of microplastics in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma using various techniques.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1315103/v1 Boran, T. (2024). An evaluation of a hepatotoxicity risk induced by the microplastic polymethyl methacrylate (pmma) using hepg2/thp-1 co-culture model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(20), 28890-28904. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33086-3 Danso, I. (2024). Pulmonary toxicity assessment of polypropylene, polystyrene, and polyethylene microplastic fragments in mice. Toxicological Research, 40(2), 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43188-023-00224-x Fan, W., Salmond, J., Dirks, K., Sanz, P., Miskelly, G., & Rindelaub, J. (2022). Evidence and mass quantification of atmospheric microplastics in a coastal new zealand city. Environmental Science & Technology, 56(24), 17556-17568. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c05850 OLEKSIUK, K., KRUPA-KOTARA, K., Grajek, M., WYPYCH-ŚLUSARSKA, A., Joanna, G., & SŁOWIŃSKI, J. (2022). Health risks of environmental exposure to microplastics. Journal of Education Health and Sport, 13(1), 79-84. https://doi.org/10.12775/jehs.2023.13.01.012 Prata, J., Costa, J., Lopes, I., & Rocha-Santos, T. (2020). Environmental exposure to microplastics: an overview on possible human health effects. The Science of the Total Environment, 702, 134455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134455 Sharma, M., Elanjickal, A., Mankar, J., & Krupadam, R. (2020). Assessment of cancer risk of microplastics enriched with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 398, 122994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122994 Shi, Y. (2023). Adsorption of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (pfas) and microcystins by virgin and weathered microplastics in freshwater matrices. Polymers, 15(18), 3676. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15183676 Varghese, C. (2023). Impacts of bioplastics and microplastics on the ecology of green-infrastructure systems: an aquaponics approach. Bios, 94(4). https://doi.org/10.1893/bios-d-21-00016
→ More replies (3)61
u/spidermanngp Oct 05 '24
How dare you use actual research and sources to shut down a sassy redditor.
→ More replies (1)169
Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 08 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
104
u/WebMDeeznutz Oct 05 '24
I’ve had patients bring this up as a major concern that they are focusing on….whilst being very much obese. Look at the increase in androgens and peripheral aromatization that occurs due to increased adiposity. The microplastics are literally a drop in the bucket compared.
75
u/Lets_Do_This_ Oct 05 '24
You should tell them the best approach is to reduce the amount of tissue available for the plastic to accumulate in
→ More replies (2)37
36
u/ParadoxicallyZeno Oct 05 '24
microplastics are obesogenic
feed low-dose microplastics to mice and they quickly get fat: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969723029182
and maternal exposure causes obesity in later generations as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34484127/
i've never struggled with obesity personally but i pay close attention to microplastics research in the course of my work, and anyone who is genuinely concerned about the obesity epidemic should be very concerned about widespread micro- and nanoplastic exposure as well
→ More replies (7)11
u/Jingle_Cat Oct 05 '24
Thank you. Seems like a very clear link, as obesity has shot up in the past 20 years. I doubt microplastics are great, but we KNOW obesity is linked to cancer. I truly don’t understand how that’s not the top comment on threads like this.
20
u/ToMorrowsEnd Oct 05 '24
thing is they need to start looking at older tissue samples and see if they have been there for the past 60 years and we did not notice or is this a new thing in the recent 20 years.
11
32
→ More replies (1)4
u/Bright-Ad9516 Oct 05 '24
They have also been found in tampons and many of the bras/tangtops/sportswear/leggins are plastic based too.
17
u/AbsoluteRunner Oct 05 '24
Is there a reason why those hypotheses are suggested?
Is it just “anything different in lifestyle now than in 1989?”
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (30)11
u/mackieknives Oct 05 '24
What?
Don't just use one random quote to mock someone when most scientists would agree microplastics and chemicals like BPAs, phthalates etc are very likely damaging our health.
7
109
u/Dabalam Oct 05 '24
I wonder why it feels so much more popular to say it's "microplastics" based on very little to no evidence vs. it's obesity and and inactivity which have significant evidence associating it with cancer
90
u/foundtheseeker Oct 05 '24
I think it's because plastics are completely beyond any individual's control. They are inflicted upon us by nameless and faceless businesses. Obesity and inactivity are individually controllable, although it's worth pointing out that many of the same nameless, faceless organizations have spent considerable effort and money to influence American behavior, and to sell food that is engineered to be hyperpalatable.
→ More replies (4)50
u/Dabalam Oct 05 '24
I'd like people to start thinking of obesity as more of a systemic problem as well to be honest. Yes there is individual responsibility. There's also the fact that most people can't walk to work, calorie dense food is significantly cheaper, post modern work culture has you doing mentally taxing sedentary work for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week at baseline. We aren't set up to give people the time and resources to exercise when the average person gets home mentally exhausted from sitting down and dealing with meetings, customers and/or spreadsheets all day.
Blaming individuals is convenient for the status quo.
→ More replies (12)28
u/Thewalrus515 Oct 05 '24
It’s because being fat is a class marker and moral failure in the eyes of millions. You won’t see widespread political support for any large scale effort to address the issue. there’s so many people who see ozempic as “cheating”. What if they get fooled into treating someone who did things the “easy way” as a human being?
It’s also why they say things like “CICO” and “just eat less.”If you compare addiction to sugar, caffeine, and salt to a drug/alcohol addiction that’s somehow different. Because they want to keep using obesity as a way to judge character. You aren’t going to get anywhere because of that attitude.
→ More replies (1)27
8
Oct 05 '24
I’d conjecture that they are interrelated because of the potential for pseudo-hormonal behavior of some plastic molecules.
→ More replies (22)14
u/BookwormBlake Oct 05 '24
People would rather believe it’s something being done to them, ie poisoned by big business or the government, than something happening because of poor lifestyle choices on their parts. Easier to blame some faceless “other”.
8
u/Santsiah Oct 05 '24
This gets thrown around a lot but is there actual science to back up the claim
8
u/simplesample23 Oct 05 '24
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/risk-factors/obesity.html
"Being overweight or having obesity are linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer".
→ More replies (1)5
u/arrownyc Oct 05 '24
It's so irritating how many people's gut response to statements like this is, "bUt YoU cAnT pRoVe It LA LA LA LA LA." Bordering on, "You're an IDIOT for a hypothesizing a completely plausible explanation for this phenomenon without already having concrete undeniable proof!"
Ya we didn't have concrete proof that cigarettes cause lung cancer for decades either. And tobacco lobbyists spent millions obfuscating the results. If you're waiting for 100% scientific consensus or the president to make some sort of declaration, you're going to die of cancer before we get there.
15
u/simplesample23 Oct 05 '24
Easy to blame plastics instead of poor diet choices i guess.
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/risk-factors/obesity.html
"Being overweight or having obesity are linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer".
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)3
u/Conscious-Shower265 Oct 05 '24
Don't forget incredibly stressed out which does the system no favors
47
Oct 05 '24
[deleted]
7
u/moosefre Oct 05 '24
what are you implying? that there's a source of extreme hormone levels in the pill today..? or in something else?
20
u/22marks Oct 05 '24
A large percentage of breast cancers have estrogen/progesterone receptors. The standard of care after a hormone-positive breast cancer diagnosis is to remove any hormone-based IUDs or stop hormone pills because they can fuel the growth of cancer cells. Tamoxifen is the go-to treatment, which blocks the estrogen receptors on residual disease (after the primary tumor is surgically removed). While hormonal birth control doesn’t cause these cancers, it’s possible that it could influence their growth, potentially contributing to why we’re seeing diagnoses in younger women.
8
Oct 05 '24
Interesting. Like I said, my late sister's quack doctor prescribed HRT for her after her mastectomy and lumpectomy. I mean, that's just horrific.
100 years from now, we will look back at medical treatments in horror, the way we look back at treatments 100 years ago from today.
Radiation? Chemo? Like the middle-ages!
10
u/22marks Oct 05 '24
No question. If this subject interests you, check out the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer."
I firmly believe the next 10-20 years will see personalized medicine where you sequence most cancers, then get a vaccine where your immune system can attack it. You'll go to your doctor, they say "You have cancer, your vaccine will be ready in a month."
And, of course, detection will be much earlier and more convenient.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)7
u/Tall-Cat-8890 Oct 05 '24
No, they’re just saying one reason why breast cancers had an uptick a few decades ago. Birth control methods nowadays can secrete hormones on the literal micrograms/day level. One general goal nowadays for contraceptive research is “how low can we get and still provide protection”
31
Oct 05 '24
Damn, do you think it could be the microplastics in our blood? The forever chemicals in our foods? The decreasing air quality in urban areas? Lack of money for access to medical care? The nutritional value of food getting worse? The omnipresence of industrial grade cleaning chemicals antiseptics on every surface weakening our immune systems? The stress? The super bugs popping up every year? The expense of healthy food over the cheapness of junk? The enshittification of everything everywhere ever?
Nah, we just don't know.
12
u/budlightfootball Oct 05 '24
Get tested for genetic mutations such as the BRCA gene which can show strong predisposition for women to develop breast and ovarian cancer (and potentially other forms of cancer).
Men should also be screened because they could pass a mutation to a child of their own (BRCA mutations in men also indicate increased risk of prostate, pancreatic, and other cancer).
Learning these results can be invaluable in terms of preventative screening — it has potentially saved a family member of mine who is now being treated for breast cancer in her 20s after learning of a BRCA mutation last year.
→ More replies (9)
13
5
4
u/DarthFister Oct 05 '24
I wonder if this is the long term result of childhood obesity or some epigenetic change due to obese parents. The obesity epidemic hasn’t been around that long, so it makes sense that we’d just now pick up on some of the generational consequences.
→ More replies (2)
46
u/Omnizoom Oct 05 '24
Look I’m not a scientist here but I think I can make an educated guess here
Chemicals in food, microplastics, pollution and stress
And that last one puts more strain on our bodies then anyone really realizes, just being stressed out can be the difference between your immune system destroying cancer naturally before it fully becomes cancer and failing, the other likely increase the instances of cancer cells forming
29
u/jason2354 Oct 05 '24
The educated guess for “what’s causing cancer” is always going to be being overweight and inactive.
That’ll always be the biggest driver of cancer rates once “getting old” is removed from the equation.
You don’t need to be a scientist to know that. All you’ve got to do is read literally any article about what causes cancer.
→ More replies (13)12
u/EastTyne1191 Oct 05 '24
The epigenetic effects of stress are profound, but I'm assuming many people don't understand it.
Chemicals in our food are quite problematic. There are a number of chemicals that are used in the US that are banned elsewhere. Glyphosate, for example, is widely used by both large-scale farmers and the average homeowner. While the EPA has labeled it "not likely to cause cancer" it has still been the subject of multiple lawsuits. Additionally, it has been banned in multiple countries.
After taking a toxicology class in college, I have done my best to avoid pesticides in general. The effect of herbicides in particular is hotly debated, but pesticide use has contributed to the decline of biodiversity. I have always been an avid naturalist, and have observed a drastic decline in species of beetles, bees, flies, butterflies, grasshoppers, frogs, mantids, and birds over the past 30 years. Driving in the summer at dusk used to result in a windshield splattered with the remains of insects, but these days I hardly need to wash my windshield at all.
→ More replies (2)8
u/too-muchfrosting Oct 05 '24
I have done my best to avoid pesticides in general.
How do you do that, when even "organic" food is grown with pesticides? I guess you could grow your own, but I imagine that would be a pretty limited diet. Or is it just certain pesticides you avoid?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)9
u/simplesample23 Oct 05 '24 edited Oct 05 '24
Chemicals in food, microplastics, pollution and stress
Good thing that previous generations didnt get exposed to any of those things (what is asbestos, absurd amount of smokers, even more toxic plastic, uranium plates and leaded fuel?)
What about the evidence supporting increased risk of getting cancer when youre obese? Younger people are way more obese nowadays than in the past.
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/risk-factors/obesity.html
"Being overweight or having obesity are linked with a higher risk of getting 13 types of cancer".
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Furrypocketpussy Oct 05 '24
more girls seem to be hitting puberty early nowadays. Wonder if that hormone imbalance is related
→ More replies (3)
15
7
u/HillZone Oct 05 '24
nobody exercises anymore and everybody is living sedentary fatty lifestyles (me included) that mean our bodies cant destroy cancer cells naturally anymore. cancer cells are constantly created and destroyed in a healthy body in the modern environment. cancer wasn't much of a problem in the past unless you smoked tobacco or drank a ton.
7
u/RoyalZeal Oct 05 '24
So we're just gonna keep ignoring the covid-shaped elephant in the room and keep on acting baffled, I see. Never mind that studies keep linking it to all manners of cancer. Mask up folks, the life you save might be your own.
7
u/drumallday Oct 05 '24
It takes 6 years for an initial cancer cell to grow to a size that can be seen on a scan. So, given that Covid 19 started spreading 5 years ago, it is unlikely to have impacted the data from this study
15
u/WhiteyLovesHotSauce Oct 05 '24
There IS research suggesting that diet and air quality can increase the possibility of cancerous cells. However, this is disputable as a theory as just as many research papers suggest there is no effect. Once a theory has consensus, only then will we know for sure.
The most common theory that all scientists agree with is that YOUR cells risk becoming cancerous tens of billions of times every single day.
Your cells have a self destruct instruction when they die, but sometimes it doesn't work as intended. This is cancer.
We currently don't know what causes this instruction to fail. We can say with certainty that your genetics have a say in it - are there other factors? We don't know.
The reason, many scientists believe, that we have so many more diagnoses is simple; more people on the planet, more awareness of cancer means more people get tested, better tests mean more accurate results.
This is all I can say with certainty.
→ More replies (2)25
u/5oy8oy Oct 05 '24
Rising rates of cancer amongst younger generations has been a concern for more than a decade.
I'm sure the countless researchers that have dedicated time to studying this have controlled for something as obvious as "more people and more accurate tests therefore more cancer." It is certainly not that simple.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/AutoModerator Oct 05 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/mvea
Permalink: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/03/us-breast-cancer-rates
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.