http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8068446.stm
uesday, 26 May 2009 00:04 UK
Cancer risk for child survivors
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy may be the culprit, but treatments are changing

Survivors of childhood cancer have a higher life-long risk of developing a new
form of the disease, a study shows.

The Journal of the National Cancer Institute study blames potent therapies
rather than genetics, and is the first to show the risk is so long-term.

The study of 50,000 also found those diagnosed after 1975 appeared to have a
slightly higher risk of cancer as treatments became more aggressive.

But they also led to a big improvement in child cancer survival rates.

A team from the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen studied 47,679
people who were diagnosed with cancer before the age of 20, between 1943 and
2005. They were drawn from the cancer registries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland,
Norway and Sweden.

In the 60s, only a quarter of children who were diagnosed with cancer survived
for more than five years; now, around three quarters survive
Ed Yong
Cancer Research UK

In all, they were three times more likely to develop a new cancer than their
contemporaries - and the risk remained even as people approached their
seventies.

Among survivors, the generation diagnosed between 1975 to 2005 were more likely
to have developed second cancers at comparable ages than either the generation
treated between 1960 and 1974, which saw first-generation chemotherapy, and the
period before 1960, with no chemotherapy at all.

This increase occurred despite the advances in radiation treatment in which
doses were markedly reduced, leading the team to point the finger at
chemotherapy - either as an independent factor or one which exacerbates the
carcinogenic effects of radiation.

Brain tumours were found to affect survivors more than the general population,
due to the susceptibility of the brain to cancer treatments.

"What we need now is two-fold: new treatment ideas to decrease the risk of later
effects, and much better surveillance of childhood cancer survivors during
adulthood," said Dr Jorgen Olsen, who led the research.

"Cancer treatments don't just increase the risk of other cancers, but can lead
to all sorts of other problems - from cardiovascular to reproductive."

Making changes

Dr James Nicholson, a paediatric oncologist at Addenbrooke's Hospital in
Cambridge welcomed the research as one of the most comprehensive studies yet,
but stressed change to treatment was already afoot.

If it means alarm bells ring earlier when there are symptoms in people who were
treated for cancer as a child that would be a very good thing
Dr James Nicholson
Addenbrooke's Hospital

"We have known about this for a while, and we are now in a position where we can
decrease the intensity of treatment in many cases and still get the same
results.

"But a study like this does raise awareness of the problem. If it means alarm
bells ring earlier when there are symptoms in people who were treated for cancer
as a child that would be a very good thing."

Ed Yong, Cancer Research UK's health information manager, said: "More and more
children are surviving an early fight against cancer and this study suggests
that they still have a slightly higher risk of different cancers later on in
life.

"Even so, when a child is diagnosed with cancer, the priority must be to save
life. Thanks to research, over the past few decades we have seen tremendous
improvements in the treatment of childhood cancer.

"In the 1960s, only a quarter of children who were diagnosed with cancer
survived for more than five years. Now around three quarters survive."

SEE ALSO
Childhood cancer 'long-term risk'
11 Oct 06 |  Health
Infection killing cancer children
09 May 09 |  Health
How infection may spark leukaemia
01 Apr 09 |  Health
Services 'fail' cancer children
02 Dec 08 |  Health
Teens 'miss out' on cancer trials
28 Nov 08 |  Health

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:022c56c7$0$20620

Believe these overblown lies if you wish

Believe these overblown, paranoid fancies if you wish.

The overall five year survival rates for ALL kinds of cancer of ALL stages
in advanced countries s now about 60%.  The long term permanent disease-free
CURE rate would be less, possibly about 50%, since a few cancers can recur
even after five years of apparently complete remission or have slow rates of
progress, and it is true that a few patients get rare late complications
from treatment.     I examine some older data on all this at
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/cancercure.htm but results have been
slowly improving.

Hodgkins disease is a cancer that is extremely sensitive to radiotherapy and
chemotherapy.   It is among the most curable of cancers despite almost
always being inoperable when diagnosed.  I supplied a graph showing the long
term survival rates with this cancer overall
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm

PM

"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:00377b4f$0$9731> It is very difficult to support forcing any child to
undergo chemotherapy.

bollocks, its fascist medicine http://www.whale.to/cancer/articles.html

50% more like and that is only 5 years, hardly a cure, then you torture the
child, and give it cancer down the line, while everyone fears it will return
as you haven't treated the cause, only palliated the symptoms

idiotic really

see http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

"The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and
perform various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to
weed out the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine'
as barbaric.."-Brice Taylor (Thanks For The Memories p 283)

It is very difficult to support forcing any child to undergo chemotherapy.
That is an awful prospect and possibly not even feasible, especially without
parental support. .   But this is an entirely separate consideration from
what would be best for the child.  It is a tragic and difficult situation
for all.   Know-nothings like Mike Adams do, literally, know nothing, and
should not be trying to inflame the situation further.   They should at
least be quite explicit if they are really prepared to urge the avoidance of
chemotherapy at any cost, even that of a painful, slow, early death.

There is no evidence that any "alternative" treatment will produce remission
or cure Hodgkins disease but plenty of evidence that chemotherapy can
produce prolonged, symptom-free remissions, if not cure.

See  http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm  showing
how survival rates have improved over time. These survival figures refer to
"all comers", including more aggressive and advanced cases.   This boy had a
relatively early stage and would have had an even better outlook, if he had
continued treatment once it had started and he was already showing a good
response.

PM