|
[ Cancer and Prostate Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Comments?
Misty L. Trepke
http://www.searching-alternatives.com
Daily Aspirin Use Linked With Pancreatic Cancer
By Maggie Fox
Health and Science Correspondent
10-27-3
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Women who take an aspirin a day -- which
millions do to prevent heart attack and stroke as well as to treat
headaches -- may raise their risk of getting deadly pancreatic
cancer, U.S. researchers said on Monday.
The surprising finding worried doctors, who say women will now have
to talk seriously with their physicians about the risk of taking a
daily aspirin.
Pancreatic cancer affects only 31,000 Americans a year, but it kills
virtually all its victims within three years.
The study of 88,000 nurses found that those who took two or more
aspirins a week for 20 years or more had a 58 percent higher risk of
pancreatic cancer.
"Apart from smoking, this one of the few risk factors that have been
identified for pancreatic cancer," Dr. Eva Schernhammer of Harvard
Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who led
the study, told a news conference.
"Initially we expected that aspirin would protect against pancreatic
cancer, especially since its preventive role in colorectal cancer
has been well documented. However, now it appears that we need to
examine the relationship more thoroughly," Schernhammer added in a
statement.
"This finding does not mean that women should no longer use aspirin.
There are still important benefits to the drug; we also need other
large cohort studies to confirm our finding before we can draw any
conclusions."
Schernhammer and colleagues presented their findings to a meeting in
Phoenix, Arizona, of the American Association for Cancer Research.
They studied 88,378 women taking part in a large and wide-ranging
study of nurses and their health.
Over 18 years, 161 of the nurses developed pancreatic cancer.
Those who took 14 tablets or more per week had an 86 percent greater
risk of pancreatic cancer than non-users. The nurses who took
between six and 13 tablets had a 41 percent higher risk, while those
who only took one to three aspirins a week had an 11 percent greater
risk.
The women who took the most aspirin said they were taking it not to
protect against heart disease, but because of headaches or other
aches and pains.
Even with the increased risk, heart disease is a much greater threat
to a woman's, or a man's, health. It is by far the biggest killer in
the United States and other developed nations. The American Heart
Association says cardiovascular disease killed more than 945,000
Americans in 2000.
Doctors do not clearly understand what causes pancreatic cancer, or
what makes it so deadly. Obesity is another risk factor, but
Schernhammer said her team's findings held regardless of a woman's
weight, whether she smoked and whether she had diabetes.
Schernhammer noted that one study showed that regular aspirin use
may cause pancreatitis -- an inflammation of the pancreas that can
sometimes lead to pancreatic cancer.
"There is urgent need to settle the biologic reasons for pancreatic
cancer," she said.
Copyright © 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication
or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without
the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable
for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in
reliance thereon.
In Reply to: One more example of the "whoops factor". Archive in cancer. posted by Walt Stoll on October 29, 2003 at 06:24:10:
At least this study wasn't "stopped" by the government or pharmaceutical company. My sister died of pancreatic cancer - she was allergic to aspirin. But she did smoke for years and drank heavily.
Dr. Stoll - President Carter's mother and sister both died of parcreatic cancer. The tendency for it to be genetic has been proved, hasn't it? I think I have heard or read that somewhere. Thanks.
In Reply to: One more example of the "whoops factor". Archive in cancer. posted by Walt Stoll on October 29, 2003 at 06:24:10:
There must be a correlation before there is a cause. However, not all correlations show cause. (e.g. just becase there is a correlation between aspirin and pancreatic cancer does not guarantee that aspirin causes cancer.)
This has been a problem with the Nurses Study in question here from the very beginning. Look at the problems this caused with Hormone Replacement Therapy. Causation got confused with correlation, resulting in decades of inappropriate medication. It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove causation from any data pulled from the Nurses Study. You can show correlation from this study, BUT NEVER CAUSATION. That is a result of the very nature of the Nurses Study.
See the link below for a complete explanation.
In Reply to: One more example of the "whoops factor". Archive in cancer. posted by Walt Stoll on October 29, 2003 at 06:24:10:
88000 into 161 is .002 that's a very low risk Double it and the risk is .004 this just isn't something to worry about.
Did they control for saccharin use? My only thin uncle died of pancreatic cancer. He was a lifelong saccharin user.
Macrobiotics may cure pancreatic cancer- read healing miracles from macrobiotics- good size paperback, red cover
In Reply to: Getting 'cause' and 'correlation' confused posted by Lincoln on October 29, 2003 at 14:39:22:
I got that, but why does it matter? If one is always fond in the company of the other, then isn't it simple to
eliminate correlating factor, and worry about the cause later? If aspirin is always found to be a factor in
pancreatic cancer then regardless of the "cause" of pancreatic cancer the thing to do would be to eliminate
aspirin. You can then search for or debate the "real" cause without worry.
I'm sorry but I see this as moot. The idea is to eliminate damage, not nitpick about what causes it. A doctor telling
a patient about pancreatic cancer, and possible causes of
would be negligent if her or she did not at least mention
a correlation between pancreatic cancer and aspirin, even if there was no hard evidence citing cause (assuming the
doctor knew).
In Reply to: Re: Getting 'cause' and 'correlation' confused posted by Gregory on October 29, 2003 at 18:51:16:
The problem is when you start doing stuff like seeing a correlation (such as taking HRT and reduced heart attacks) and then act on it. It turns out the correlation had nothing to due with causation and that HRT had it's own dangers.
Why did HRT look like it had a correlation with reduced heart attacks? Why did the correlation have nothing to do with the causation? It turns out that nurses who took HRT also had different behavior (improved attention to their own health) that reduced their heart attack rate. HRT itself had NOTHING to do with reducing heart attacks. But because people confused correlation with causation, much to the glee of HRT pharmaceutical companies like Women First HealthCare, it took years to discover this. (WFHC stock was trading at $13 before the reanalysis of the nurses study HRT data, it's now $1.47)
So if you stop taking aspririn because of a MINISCULE percentage point of correlation between aspirin and pancreatic cancer, without any real proof causation, are you throwing out the baby with the bath water? Pancreatic cancer is rare. Heart disease is common. Are you losing the heart and stroke benefits of aspirin over a possible causation that may or may not even exist?
31,000 people get pancreatic cancer in the U.S. every year. Heart attacks kill 500,000 women in the U.S. every year - more than all cancers combined.
This is why studies like this always say, "THE RESULTS WARRANT FURTHER STUDY ON THIS ISSUE." To read more into it than that is to misread data behind the science, plain and simple.
In Reply to: Re: Getting 'cause' and 'correlation' confused posted by Lincoln on October 29, 2003 at 19:29:17:
"The hemline theory, developed during the 1920s and 1930s, suggested that stocks rose when short skirts were in fashion and fell when longer skirts were in vogue."
Read the following link. Feel free to comment.
In Reply to: More 'cause' and 'correlation' confusion posted by Lincoln on October 29, 2003 at 20:40:13:
Interesting, but one's life doesn't depend on hemlines.
In Reply to: Re: More 'cause' and 'correlation' confusion posted by Gregory on October 29, 2003 at 21:20:32:
"Interesting, but one's life doesn't depend on hemlines."
That was the point. Neither does the stock market.
In Reply to: Re: One more example of the "whoops factor". Archive in cancer. posted by Noel on October 29, 2003 at 09:19:06:
Thanks, Noel
20% of the chance of getting pancreatic cancer is directly related to the genes and the other 80% is due to what we choose in our lifestyles that influence those genes. See the Human Genome Project results.
The relationship with alcohol and smoking has been known for many years, the aspirin relationship is newly suggested.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: More 'cause' and 'correlation' confusion posted by Lincoln on October 29, 2003 at 21:53:52:
you both make good points and I see what you are saying. But to simplify the debate, could we agree that by eliminating as many toxins from the body as possible (ie, drugs), we reduce our risk of disease whatever the triggers may be?
In Reply to: Re: it's all about toxicity posted by peterb on October 30, 2003 at 08:22:59:
But is aspirin a toxin? That's the question. In one sense, it's really just glorified willow bark.
If you are going to change your usage on aspirin, that's fine. Just don't do so on the basis of THIS study. Find some other, more rigorously controlled study.
In Reply to: Re: it's all about toxicity posted by Lincoln on October 30, 2003 at 09:51:51:
I agree with your premise, in fact the best reason to limit its use may be studies showing a correlation to higher rates of CHF hospitalization with higher useage of NSAIDs, including aspirin. Although this could also point to aspirin as only a co-factor, the larger amount of data and the proportionately greater instance of disease in relation to useage levels is hard to ignore.
In Reply to: Re: it's all about toxicity posted by peterb on October 31, 2003 at 16:46:08:
Hi, Peterb -
What other diseases is the use of aspirin connected to? Thanks.
In Reply to: Re: it's all about toxicity posted by Janet on October 31, 2003 at 18:20:21:
bleeding ulcers, liver damage, and kidney failure, though CHF appears to be the most serious.
|
[ Cancer and Prostate Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |