Colorectal cancer is rising among younger adults(cnn.com)
cnn.com
Colorectal cancer is rising among younger adults
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/24/health/colorectal-cancer-young-age-mystery/index.html
15 comments
This study [1] makes a strong argument that the two are not correlated. Specifically, zero patients of a sample of 144 patients suffering from this strain of cancer also tested positive for HPV-16. Admittedly the cells were tested from cultures collected between 2005 and 2010 at the near start of this trend - it would be interesting to see if that holds true for more recent cultures and across more varieties of HPV strains.
[1] https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
[1] https://infectagentscancer.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118...
Anal cancer isn't the same as colorectal cancer, and the risk factor to look for with anal cancer is anal sex, so it should be pretty easy to sort out.
Thank you for posting the top risk factor, interesting that it’s not diet.
HPV is also the big driver of throat cancer. I’ll leave it for readers to connect the dots as to what risky behavior looks like for HPV-driven anal cancer and why it might be rising in younger adults
HPV is also the big driver of throat cancer. I’ll leave it for readers to connect the dots as to what risky behavior looks like for HPV-driven anal cancer and why it might be rising in younger adults
Now there is a HPV vaccine for several years already. Shouldn't we be seeing a decrease in cases after a peak before vaccination, if the cause were this?
The HPV vaccine was either not available, or not scheduled early enough for these 30- and 40-somethings mentioned in the article.
Some 80% of adults carry one strain of HPV or another, so vaccinating after you have become sexually active is mostly ineffective.
For the even younger generation that is getting the vaccine early, it might have an effect
Some 80% of adults carry one strain of HPV or another, so vaccinating after you have become sexually active is mostly ineffective.
For the even younger generation that is getting the vaccine early, it might have an effect
> Some 80% of adults carry one strain of HPV or another, so vaccinating after you have become sexually active is mostly ineffective.
I wonder if that is a wise policy on part of health authorities. I bet is likely the vaccine would reduce the severity of infection in people that are carriers already, just like the COVID vaccine helps you avoiding a severe case when infected.
I wonder if that is a wise policy on part of health authorities. I bet is likely the vaccine would reduce the severity of infection in people that are carriers already, just like the COVID vaccine helps you avoiding a severe case when infected.
[deleted]
[deleted]
HPV vaccines have been around since 2008. According to the CDC 89% of teens have been vaccinated. So, hopefully that will help stem the tide.
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/teenvaxvi...
Source: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/teenvaxvi...
First HPV vaccine was approved in the U.S. in 2006. Should be protecting patients younger than 30. But won't protect them from colon cancer. And here's a report that disputes HPV's causative role in rectal cancer
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-020-00281-z
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-020-00281-z
Don't we already have a vaccine for HPV?
We do, but uptake is not great in the US versus other developed countries [1]. There are efforts to improve this [2]. Australia’s high uptake rate is leading to possible eradication of cervical cancer by 2035 [3].
Tangentially, there is substantial evidence viruses lead to various cancers, and with vaccines being such high leverage wrt cost:value, we should be leaning hard into prevention (although mRNA and CRISPR will still be necessary paths for cancer treatment).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482788/
[2] http://hpvroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05_Schoo...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/02/austr...
Tangentially, there is substantial evidence viruses lead to various cancers, and with vaccines being such high leverage wrt cost:value, we should be leaning hard into prevention (although mRNA and CRISPR will still be necessary paths for cancer treatment).
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6482788/
[2] http://hpvroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05_Schoo...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/feb/02/austr...
> but uptake is not great in the US versus other developed countries
It's painfully confounded with other variables, but that could provide a (noisy) quick check on how likely it is that HPV causes the cancer increase, right? If there's an effective vaccine with varied uptake, then we should be able to compare countries by rate of vaccination and cancer, and see if there's a substantial negative correlation.
It's painfully confounded with other variables, but that could provide a (noisy) quick check on how likely it is that HPV causes the cancer increase, right? If there's an effective vaccine with varied uptake, then we should be able to compare countries by rate of vaccination and cancer, and see if there's a substantial negative correlation.
Yes - unfortunately uptake is limited as some people see giving your child the vaccine as a green light for sexual activity.
Those same people don't educate their children on the existence of HPV and its role in their future diseases. The kids have already been green-lit in this department via total ignorance of the risks.
Uptake is limited simply because it hasn't been required in the USA as part of school enrollment. This is the primary driver of vaccination in the country.
I'm fairly certain you're conflating hormonal birth control with HPV vaccination.
Uptake is limited simply because it hasn't been required in the USA as part of school enrollment. This is the primary driver of vaccination in the country.
I'm fairly certain you're conflating hormonal birth control with HPV vaccination.
> I'm fairly certain you're conflating hormonal birth control with HPV vaccination.
No, I'm talking about HPV vaccination. It comes up every so often in parent forums and there are always people taking this position.
Not that it doesn't happen with respect to birth control as well.
No, I'm talking about HPV vaccination. It comes up every so often in parent forums and there are always people taking this position.
Not that it doesn't happen with respect to birth control as well.
[deleted]
I'm curious if anyone has any insight. The recent rise in this does feel like something dietary or environmental will be involved. The fact that it's colon cancer definitely suggests dietary type exposures. Are there major changes in diet in the past few decades that we can point to? Are there some countries where this is happening and others where it isn't?
Microplastics and weird chemicals like phthalates?
I've been on a health kick lately and on paper tinned sardines seem excellent. Tons of protein, calcium, omega 3, etc... You can get them packed in water or mustard or tomato sauce or olive oil if you are worried about seed oils (which I am, and lots are packed in sunflower oil). Low mercury.
Too bad that 100 grams of sardines can contain up to 30 milligrams of microplastics! Turns out that the ocean is full of plastic, which plankton eat since microplastics are just the right size for them, then the sardines eat the plankton. And then if you eat sardines... Of course most people aren't getting cancer from eating sardines, but microplastics are absolutely ubiquitous. Sardines are just a great example of a huge concentration of microplastics where you might not expect it. (Oh and don't forget the BPA in the tin's plastic lining! Oh it's BPA free? I guess they used BPC as a plasticizer... there are very few studies about BPC so I guess it must be safe!)
There was a study recently that showed fast foods contained huge amounts of phthalates - the researchers linked it to the plastic gloves that the food workers wear. Which is disgusting - why are we afraid of human skin touching our food? Do you honestly think people replace gloves more readily than they wash their hands?
I've been on a health kick lately and on paper tinned sardines seem excellent. Tons of protein, calcium, omega 3, etc... You can get them packed in water or mustard or tomato sauce or olive oil if you are worried about seed oils (which I am, and lots are packed in sunflower oil). Low mercury.
Too bad that 100 grams of sardines can contain up to 30 milligrams of microplastics! Turns out that the ocean is full of plastic, which plankton eat since microplastics are just the right size for them, then the sardines eat the plankton. And then if you eat sardines... Of course most people aren't getting cancer from eating sardines, but microplastics are absolutely ubiquitous. Sardines are just a great example of a huge concentration of microplastics where you might not expect it. (Oh and don't forget the BPA in the tin's plastic lining! Oh it's BPA free? I guess they used BPC as a plasticizer... there are very few studies about BPC so I guess it must be safe!)
There was a study recently that showed fast foods contained huge amounts of phthalates - the researchers linked it to the plastic gloves that the food workers wear. Which is disgusting - why are we afraid of human skin touching our food? Do you honestly think people replace gloves more readily than they wash their hands?
My vote is for added iron. Processed food producers add iron that can't be digested to lots of foods (cereal is the biggest offender) to look good for the nutrition label. It just drags along the GI tract at higher and higher concentrations as you digest your food.
What has increased is the consumption of sugar, HFC and/or faux sweeteners.
All are seen as harmless and normalized. You can thank Big Sugar for that. The type and level of sugars is historically abnormal (as is the consumption of animal proteins).
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
All are seen as harmless and normalized. You can thank Big Sugar for that. The type and level of sugars is historically abnormal (as is the consumption of animal proteins).
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
Too many things. Added on purpose to food (preservatives, etc), added on purpose to produce (pesticides, etc..), added by chance to processed food (mineral oil...).
My guess would be more processed food.
The other most likely culprit is alcohol, but young people are drinking less of that.
The other most likely culprit is alcohol, but young people are drinking less of that.
If I recall correctly, those figures in the USA and Canada for example have been falling very slightly only recently, after decades of increasing.
I suspect the rates of cancer we see wouldn’t have had a chance to decrease as a result. Cancer from poor nutrition is a cumulative thing, so we wouldn’t see meaningful changes from a few % decrease in alcohol consumption for many years (if at all).
This may be different in other countries too, so apologies if you aren’t thinking strictly within the North America bubble.
I suspect the rates of cancer we see wouldn’t have had a chance to decrease as a result. Cancer from poor nutrition is a cumulative thing, so we wouldn’t see meaningful changes from a few % decrease in alcohol consumption for many years (if at all).
This may be different in other countries too, so apologies if you aren’t thinking strictly within the North America bubble.
> My guess would be more processed food.
Mine would be colon proximity to pockets where we carry our omnipresent smartphones all day around. I think a simple test to this hypothesis is to see if there is correlation between tumor position and if the person is left or right handed, as the phone probably will be stored in a preferred side pocket, according to handedness.
Mine would be colon proximity to pockets where we carry our omnipresent smartphones all day around. I think a simple test to this hypothesis is to see if there is correlation between tumor position and if the person is left or right handed, as the phone probably will be stored in a preferred side pocket, according to handedness.
This is a good idea and I would donate to such a study.
My guess is either some chemical or food additive used in the industrial processing of foods that we are consuming in processed foods, or even more terrifying if true, some kind of pesticide that has been introduced in the last 20 years and is only now bearing its teeth.
It’s tempting to suspect something awful like that, but looking at high quality meta analyses of the lifestyles of people who get most common diseases will reveal just how harmful our diets are — even without pesticides and industrial additives bearing teeth. It’s consistent the world over; you can plainly eat, drink, and sit yourself to death.
I’m not saying the pesticides and preservatives don’t matter, I just doubt anything new has popped up to make things worse. It’s already been pretty bad for many decades.
In the case of Lawson, it could have been a case of genetics rather than diet; she appears relatively healthy and is very young. But these outliers aren’t unheard of, and make for a kind of shocking story when presented with statistics about cancer rates in younger adults increasing. The average age is much higher though, and the health of the average person getting these cancers is likely worse. This isn’t anything all that new, and more so a continuation of trends.
I’m not saying the pesticides and preservatives don’t matter, I just doubt anything new has popped up to make things worse. It’s already been pretty bad for many decades.
In the case of Lawson, it could have been a case of genetics rather than diet; she appears relatively healthy and is very young. But these outliers aren’t unheard of, and make for a kind of shocking story when presented with statistics about cancer rates in younger adults increasing. The average age is much higher though, and the health of the average person getting these cancers is likely worse. This isn’t anything all that new, and more so a continuation of trends.
Could also be compounded by sitting on our asses all day (literally, not figuratively).
I was thinking of that or maybe pesticides. Something like pesticides could be visible from different effects in different countries.
Anecdotally this has been awful amongst my peers. My step kids dad died by38 from it. The oldest’s best friends dad has it. I know a handful of others who have had it or scares.
There are so many factors, so it’s hard to know what’s causing the shift. I think a lot of it will be to do with highly processed foods and a lack of fibre, but one interesting one I didn’t know about until recently was dairy consumption, which appears to potentially have a significant protective effect according to observational studies [1]. Perhaps the popularity of non-dairy milks is one of many factors?
1. https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/29/11/2309/72050/Dairy...
1. https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/29/11/2309/72050/Dairy...
It appears dairy took the place previously occupied by eggs and animal fats as villain food lately, everyone I know appears to be trying to avoid it.
> excess body weight, lack of physical activity, high consumption of processed meat and red meat, very high alcohol consumption
> “We know that smoking, alcohol, lack of physical activity, being overweight or obese, increased consumption of red meat – so basically, dietary factors and environmental and lifestyle factors – are likely playing a big role,”
> There could be correlations between obesity in younger adults, the foods they eat and the increase in colorectal cancers for the young adult population
> “I think younger people are on average consuming less healthy food – fast food, processed snacks, processed sugars – and I think that those foods also contain higher concentrations of carcinogens and mutagens, in addition to the fact that they are very fattening,”
> “it’s likely some kind of exposure, whether it be diet, medication, changing microbiome,” that is driving the rise in colorectal cancers in younger adults.
> “We know that smoking, alcohol, lack of physical activity, being overweight or obese, increased consumption of red meat – so basically, dietary factors and environmental and lifestyle factors – are likely playing a big role,”
> There could be correlations between obesity in younger adults, the foods they eat and the increase in colorectal cancers for the young adult population
> “I think younger people are on average consuming less healthy food – fast food, processed snacks, processed sugars – and I think that those foods also contain higher concentrations of carcinogens and mutagens, in addition to the fact that they are very fattening,”
> “it’s likely some kind of exposure, whether it be diet, medication, changing microbiome,” that is driving the rise in colorectal cancers in younger adults.
This will be a great comment section full of people with their own pre-baked pet theories on what exactly is causing this. I’m sure microplastics, chemicals in foods, and “kids these days” will certainly make an appearance.
And? What's your point? Many of us are worried about this, there's no guidance from our overlords, and there are some very obvious differences between diets today and diets $REFDELTA years ago. Speculation about microplastic, chemicals, lack of fiber, etc... is perfectly reasonable.
Thanks for the hysteria, “throwaway account.” But it is obvious to even the most casual observer that it’s 5G networks causing all of this.
And covid vaccines side effects
Could sitting for long hours could be one contributing factor?
Maybe this question is stupid but I am genuinely curious.
I would expect there would be a lot more observed cases at large software companies. I don't believe that's the case.
I think thanks to Agile standups it might have shifted into call-centers /s
I mean, if we’re speculating about butt-related things… anal sex has been steadily growing in popularity. Butt implants are a thing now. Also bidets have become more popular since the pandemic.
But at least alien abductions isn’t trending like it was in the 90’s.
But at least alien abductions isn’t trending like it was in the 90’s.
I’m sure the probe technology from an advanced alien race is perfectly safe
My bet would be the amount of preservatives in food is a contributing factor. Sure, it prevents bacterial contamination of our food, but once introduced to your body how is it impacting your gut biome? It's filled with bacteria that are just as susceptible to those preservatives. And we now know that affecting your gut biome means that your digestive tract is more susceptible to illness.
[deleted]
Improved testing coverage, sensitivity, and diagnostics are strong factors as called out at the end of the article.
Maybe because they sit so much, as opposed go all previous generations?
They also have higher levels of obesity and diabetes.
As an aside — didn’t they used to have studies that said sitting was as bad as smoking for health? What happened to those? The standing desk craze seems to have faded
They also have higher levels of obesity and diabetes.
As an aside — didn’t they used to have studies that said sitting was as bad as smoking for health? What happened to those? The standing desk craze seems to have faded
A bunch of studies came out showing that standing isn't really much better than sitting.
It's movement that you need. We are born to move, but payed to sit.
It's movement that you need. We are born to move, but payed to sit.
There is definitely a link with the lymphatic systems operation and movement. So there's even a mechanistic reason why sitting and standing but not moving aren't as good as moving around.
It is so tragic that this article lists "consumption of red meat" as a risk factor for developing colorectal cancer. This association has not been demonstrated.
To understand more, you can watch this youtube video in which Nina Teicholz breaks down the science around red meat and health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rz-8H_i1wA (skip to 9:30 for the discussion of colon cancer).
To understand more, you can watch this youtube video in which Nina Teicholz breaks down the science around red meat and health: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rz-8H_i1wA (skip to 9:30 for the discussion of colon cancer).
Look at micro plastics, you will find your answers there.
Do you have any studies that link microplastics to early onset colorectal cancer or you're just making wild claims?
It is too early. The fact that the science hasn't been done yet doesn't mean that it is a wild claim. It is an extremely reasonable and obvious hypothesis.
It turns out making everything out of toxic plastic and eating garbage food full of random chemicals that were never really tested is a bad idea.
I’m not particularly shocked. This is our century’s lead paint moment. If anyone survives the fertility crisis and the burning and the famine and they can still read and write then they’re going to be wondering what we were thinking. We basically just roll things out as they’re discovered and never stop to think about the consequences. Well here are the consequences.
I’m not particularly shocked. This is our century’s lead paint moment. If anyone survives the fertility crisis and the burning and the famine and they can still read and write then they’re going to be wondering what we were thinking. We basically just roll things out as they’re discovered and never stop to think about the consequences. Well here are the consequences.
> It turns out making everything out of toxic plastic
We've been doing this since the 50's. It should have surfaced much earlier.
We've been doing this since the 50's. It should have surfaced much earlier.
This is absolutely not true. In the 1950's food was packaged in glass or paper. Polymer science was in its infancy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupperware
At-home food storage was switching to plastic in the 50s.
At-home food storage was switching to plastic in the 50s.
Fair point. Still, I think the reference point for plastic ubiquity comes quite a while after the 1950s. Plus, there are many different types of polymers and plasticizers and processed food is exposed to plastic at many points during its production and packaging. I would expect to find very different microplastic concentrations in leftovers from a home-cooked meal stored in a 1950's tupperware container and a modern frozen lasagna (or whatever) microwaved in its own plastic packaging.
Ahhh there's nothing like getting lectured on a Sunday morning by that one person who thinks they knows all the things that no one else knows.
edit: to stay on topic, I find these comments are useless, and do not contribute to the discussion in any way.
It's not backed up with evidence or any kind of data, it's just an opinion, and a hand-wavey one at that.
edit: to stay on topic, I find these comments are useless, and do not contribute to the discussion in any way.
It's not backed up with evidence or any kind of data, it's just an opinion, and a hand-wavey one at that.
But I think the vast majority of the world "knows"? Poll people on whether they're happy with various chemicals being added or ending up in their food, and the overwhelming majority would oppose it. You might simply claim they're all ignorant. Run that same poll on whether people would approve of dihydrogen monoxide [1] being added to their food, and it'd be right up their on the chopping block for banning.
But I don't think trying to trick people proves much. Obviously things like diisononyl phthalate [2] is not just a scary name for an otherwise innocuous substance. It's a scary name for a scary compound that has indeed been proven to be harmful. Nonetheless people are consuming it in large quantities, and governments are remiss to do anything. And it's just one compound among many.
Companies making billions of dollars off these products (or other products that contain them) have far more time, motivation, and ability to influence or "influence" government officials than literally anybody else. Science can help somewhat, but it's also regularly coopted as a part of the same influence game. Grants, donations, first party science, and more gray-zone areas of influence are all perfectly standard. In any case, things like diisononyl phthalate have been proven harmful in countless studies. It doesn't matter.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diisononyl_phthalate
But I don't think trying to trick people proves much. Obviously things like diisononyl phthalate [2] is not just a scary name for an otherwise innocuous substance. It's a scary name for a scary compound that has indeed been proven to be harmful. Nonetheless people are consuming it in large quantities, and governments are remiss to do anything. And it's just one compound among many.
Companies making billions of dollars off these products (or other products that contain them) have far more time, motivation, and ability to influence or "influence" government officials than literally anybody else. Science can help somewhat, but it's also regularly coopted as a part of the same influence game. Grants, donations, first party science, and more gray-zone areas of influence are all perfectly standard. In any case, things like diisononyl phthalate have been proven harmful in countless studies. It doesn't matter.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody
[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diisononyl_phthalate
Most of the things you believe are not backed evidence that you are personally aware of. Each of believes things to be even though we have at best only a heuristic argument to support them.
It is clear to me that the American diet is poison. We add sugar to everything. It’s hard to buy bacon without sugar added. Our bread is more like pastry. When I lived in Germany the diet felt much better. It would not surprise me to find out that part of the rise of cancer is our over engineered food products.
It is clear to me that the American diet is poison. We add sugar to everything. It’s hard to buy bacon without sugar added. Our bread is more like pastry. When I lived in Germany the diet felt much better. It would not surprise me to find out that part of the rise of cancer is our over engineered food products.
If "we" already "know" this then why does it fucking keep happening?
Corporations make more money by selling trash.
We don't know the mechanism. It could be sitting on our asses for all we know. Or, more plausibly, lots more anal sex (which is great for a few reasons - we know how to stop viruses and more sex is good).
We have more homework to do.
We have more homework to do.
> Or, more plausibly, lots more anal sex
That's not "ringing true" for me. Is there evidence of this?
That's not "ringing true" for me. Is there evidence of this?
The obvious culprit is the increase in anal sex. https://bedbible.com/anal-sex-statistics/
You would expect to see statistically significant differences in the rates of colorectal cancer among men than women if “being on the receiving end of anal sex” was causing colorectal cancer.
1 in 23 for men, 1 in 26 for women https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-....
The concern is the dramatic increase in the younger generation. Using protection in either orifice should be encouraged. HPV is over 150 different cancers and the greatest cause of anal cancer. Better health education and increased HPV vaccination before sex is going to be key.
The concern is the dramatic increase in the younger generation. Using protection in either orifice should be encouraged. HPV is over 150 different cancers and the greatest cause of anal cancer. Better health education and increased HPV vaccination before sex is going to be key.
...and the obvious best quick fix is offering the HPV vaccine to everyone at all ages.
Infection by the human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most important risk factor for anal cancer. Most squamous cell anal cancers are linked to infection with HPV. HPV is a group of more than 150 related viruses, the same group of viruses that causes cervical cancer, as well as other kinds of cancer. In fact, women with a history of cervical cancer (or pre-cancer) have an increased risk of anal cancer.