HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Did you have a family history of prostate cancer?

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/5/2015 3:38 PM (GMT 0)
Jack, do try not to scold. I'm pretty sure Doug thought he was agreeing with you, more or less.

You said...
Most (75%) prostate cancer is “sporadic,” meaning that the damage to the genes occurs by chance, lifestyle and exposures after a person is born.


So, 1) Chance, 2)Lifestyle, and 3) Exposures.

Doug picked up on number 1 -- Chance. This seems to have made you cross because you wanted him to pick up on number 2 -- Lifestyle. Or at least that seems to be what has set you off.
Posted 1/5/2015 3:40 PM (GMT 0)
Jack, some researchers have.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/besides-lifestyle-and-genetics-cancer-risk-also-tied-to-bad-luck-1420139400

And you're right we can all have our own opinions. I don't disagree with your post I just don't lean that way in all cases.
Posted 1/5/2015 3:42 PM (GMT 0)
Fair enough, PDA...not intending to scold (sorry Doug).

PC is much more than luck of the draw.  We can do better, and we can start by leading & teaching the next generation.

Posted 1/5/2015 3:43 PM (GMT 0)
Yeah, Peter you hit on the head. Of course lifestyle and environment affect EVERYTHING. Didn't want to state the obvious. Thanks.

Cheers, Doug
Posted 1/5/2015 4:53 PM (GMT 0)

Doug, thanks for the link to the very interesting article.

There ARE some types of cancer for which luck of the draw does seem to be a significant correlated factor, while others are more directly related to environmental factors (diet, lifestyle, etc).

THIS article (covering the same research by Tomasetti and Vogelstein) has excellent graphical representations of the research findings.  The blue/green ERS ("extra risk score") chart highlights that colon cancer is equally (but opposite) as strongly correlated to assignable causes as pancreatic cancer is correlated to the stochastic (random) factors.  So, what should one do with this data...?  It basically says not to worry about getting pancreatic cancer, but do what you can to manage your risk of colon cancer.

While this research shows a correlation, it does not speak to the cause.  It will be interesting when the causes of the random accelerated cell divisions are revealed...because now for this subset of cancer types it remains a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg; which is the cause, and which is the effect.  The randomness is simply not yet understood.

Notably NOT among the research findings in this paper on cancer "randomness" is prostate cancer (or breast cancer). 

INTERVIEWER: Why did you decide to exclude breast cancer and prostate cancer?

CRISTIAN TOMASETTI: We studied 31 tissue types. And what you asked is very important because breast cancer and prostate cancer — those are two very, very important cancers with extremely high incidence. The reason why we had to leave them out is that we didn’t feel that we had reliable enough estimates for how many stem cell divisions occur in those tissues in a lifetime. And to simply explain the basic idea — tissues like colon undergo divisions that, say, renew every five days or basically a week. So there is very high renewal, and it’s pretty linear in time. While in tissues like breast, the renewal, the cell division, it’s highly dependent on our hormonal levels and age, so we were not able to find estimates that we felt were reliable enough to give us a number that would have allowed us to do an analysis for those tissues.

I would certainly agree that luck will ultimately be one of the risk factors for prostate cancer, but the 60-fold differences in the global incidence of prostate cancer, AND the adoptive parent data I previously referenced, AND the similar (but different) studies of Asian twin brothers seperated early in life (one raised in western culture, the other raised in eastern culture) having different PC outcomes...all of these point directly to the strong influence of environment (lifestyle, diet, etc) on PC risk factors.  My opinion...stronger influence than luck.

Again, I suppose it goes back to the question "what does one do with this data...?"  Do what you can to manage risks?  Or conclude that it just doesn't matter.


Posted 1/5/2015 5:21 PM (GMT 0)
Jack, I will categorically state that it does matter, and agree that environment and lifestyle are contributing factors for all type of cancer. What doesn't matter to me at this stage is why I have it, I want to focus on how to deal with it. I would love for science to figure this out and would be fascinated I'm sure! At the personal level, "I haver Cancer, bad luck, move on and fight." For, me better than the "what if" mind game. We are all born with the ingredients needed to form Cancer, some of us do, some don't. Lifestyle and environment provide the catalyst and "food", I believe.

Cheers, Doug
Posted 1/5/2015 5:45 PM (GMT 0)
I have PC therefore there is family history. if you don't believe that ask my brother cool

ed
Posted 1/5/2015 7:28 PM (GMT 0)
ARangel,
I had no family history of cancer and was the first at age 44. Then my father was diagnosed with it AFTER me.

There is a lot of controversy about PCa and family history. When a study of cadavers was done in men ranging in men aged 20 and above what they found was that men in their 20's had a 20% chance of having detectable prostate cancer. 30% in the 30's, 40% in the 40's, up to 90% in the 90's. The risk factor was consistent by age. The percentage of men with the disease so high that family history was a non-factor by comparison. One reason that we see a higher frequency of men diagnosed in family trees is simply because of the higher screening rates.

That stated, what we do not know is whether the frequency of detection of high risk cancer is genetic but I suspect so. We already know that men with the BRCA1 gene have a higher rate of more aggressive disease.

So it is that I was the first in the family to get a positive diagnosis for PCa but my father did get that Dx as well quite some time later. Family history may are may not be a factor for us.
Posted 1/5/2015 8:00 PM (GMT 0)
My husband had terrible eating habits prior to his diagnosis of prostate cancer. They were so bad that his mother, sister, and kids (in addition to me) scolded him about them. When I would say to him that someday he would pay for his poor diet, his reply was always that cancer does not run in his family. He would say that his father did not have cancer.
Posted 1/5/2015 11:42 PM (GMT 0)
No family history, in fact my 89 y.o. father's PSA recently measured at less than 2.
Posted 1/5/2015 11:47 PM (GMT 0)
No history that I know of. However, given that the chance of having clinically significant prostate cancer is roughly equivalent to your age it would be amazing if none of them had it. They probably just died of something else.
Posted 1/6/2015 3:19 AM (GMT 0)
Grandfather died with prostate cancer. My Dad and two of three siblings had prostate .In the next generation Cajun Jeff and I both have it. Two of my sons have had multiple biopsies but, so far, no positives.
Posted 1/6/2015 3:32 AM (GMT 0)
Does a family history warrant having a biopsy done earlier, such as when PSA reaches 2.5 or yearly increase is .35?
Posted 1/6/2015 3:43 AM (GMT 0)
JackH

1: Are you saying there are familial genetic markers that predisposes you to cancer; but they are triggered by environmental and lifestyle factors. If so, Angelina Jolie cut-off her beautiful breasts for nothing because those "in the know" should have advised her to avoid the triggers by changing lifestyle and environment!

2: If someone had advised me that I could keep my prostate by eating better and leaving for (say) Greenland where the environment is less polluted, I'd be able to rectify my apoptosis then I'd be writing this letter from Greenland.

3: The argument that I'd be more likely to test PSA if my father or siblings had PCa does not hold water, because "screening" has been shown not to greatly affect early detection PCa. It appears that many health systems are against prostate screening per se as it does NOT show benefits compared to (say) bowel, breast and cervical screening (see the position statement -- click on Pdf or Word doc www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/other-pop-health#prostate)
Posted 1/6/2015 3:55 AM (GMT 0)
No

I am the only known person in my family tree with a dx. case of PC, ever. Hope it stays that way
Posted 1/6/2015 10:54 AM (GMT 0)
No
tony w
Posted 1/6/2015 11:43 AM (GMT 0)
Squirm: I would suggest that in MY INDIVIDUAL CASE, that is exactly what I did, which is why I'm now a member of this forum. I started annual PSA and DRE's at 45 due to family history and after the second annual rise of 1.0 (from <1, to 2.0 to 3.3 from 2012 to 2014) I had the biopsy. IMHO, ignoring familial patterns is extremely risky, and the cost/benefit analysis suggests that the cost of screening is quite low compared to the potential benefit.
Posted 1/6/2015 3:45 PM (GMT 0)
PSA3DOT7 asked me a question in a post last night; this post is in response to him:     I think you are mixing up a couple things you’ve probably read somewhere else...     You wrote : “ …‘screening’ has been shown not to greatly affect early detection PCa .”   That’s not even close to being right, but I think you simply had your concepts mixed up (please don’t mistake this as “scolding”).   PSA screening has greatly impacted PC detection.   When the PSA was first approved as a screening tool in the early 1990, there was an alarming increase in incidence in PC detection.     What you seem to be mixing-up is the fact that PSA screening seems to have had little effect on PC mortality.   Restated with another important point of emphasis, the main drawback of the well-documented increase in PC detection resulting from widespread PSA screening is the overtreatment of indolent disease.   So, yes, it is true that familial aggregation of prostate cancer may be at least partially caused by increased diagnostic activity … if you brother, or your father, had prostate cancer, then you are more likely to have a PSA test (perhaps you've seen some of the discussions here at HW about men pushing PSA testing upon their family members).   If/when you have a PSA test, prostate cancer is so common (mostly low-risk PC) you are more likely to ultimately be diagnosed with PC through the common sequence of events which follows.         This summary, copied from a NIH article , nicely ties together an understanding of impact of increasingly refined PC detection capabilities weighed against the more clearly apparent needs of research to shift to prevention (sadly, we continue to invest 97% of our cancer research funds in better treatments and early detection; only 3% is invested in tackling causes):   The ability to diagnose prostate cancer earlier has resulted in the detection of a number of clinically insignificant prostate cancers, with the result that physicians often have to face the dilemma of having to decide whether to initiate attempts at curative treatment or to manage the disease with watchful waiting or active surveillance. Consequently, prevention strategies aimed at halting the initiation and development of prostate cancer are rapidly moving to the forefront of research, with increasing attention to identifying dietary and lifestyle changes that can influence the natural biological behavior of this malignancy.   The article, BTW, also speaks directly to the epidemiologic studies I previously mentioned n this thread, highlighting the vast global differences in both incidence and mortality…the highest in the African-American population in the US and the lowest PC incidence and mortality rates in Asian populations.
Posted 1/6/2015 4:10 PM (GMT 0)
Yes - Uncle in his 70's.

2 brothers age 49 and 51.
Posted 1/6/2015 8:27 PM (GMT 0)
No family history that I know of. Not father, grandfathers, or uncles.
Posted 1/7/2015 6:21 AM (GMT 0)
Family History:

Grand father and all his brothers all died of fast onset aggressive PC age 62-64

Dad diagnosed at Age 55 in 1990, T3 or T4 PSA=20, + DRE. died 1999 after 9 hard years;

Next Younger brother, T2, PSA-2.95 age 45, no nobot RP fine now

I have -DRE, 1.0PSA over 12 years, pro-active Biopsy. + 1n 4 cores in 14 with some fragmention.

RALP 18 Dec 2014. Gleason 3+3 before and after RALP

Doing OK post RALP, I have 98% volume control on UI and Willy can rise again, no further Intel.

I am hanging there, better off than I thought.

scientificlifestyle
Posted 1/7/2015 4:01 PM (GMT 0)
Half-brother died of PC at age 77.
Sister DXed with BC and underwent a double mastectomy.
First cousin DXed with PC and had robotic surgery.

My PSA goes up and down but I suspect I have PC based on my age alone (70 next month). No biopsy yet.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12