[HN Gopher] The long, slow process of carcinogenesis
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The long, slow process of carcinogenesis
        
       Author : _Microft
       Score  : 98 points
       Date   : 2022-01-20 17:43 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.science.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.science.org)
        
       | fabian2k wrote:
       | I remember reading the chapter on cancer from the Alberts
       | "Molecular Biology of the Cell" and even though I understood the
       | basics of cancer at that point I was still suprised by many
       | aspects. I didn't expect just how messed up the genome of cancer
       | cells could be, with chromosomes fusing or duplicating. Of course
       | these kind of extreme changes are very often lethal to the cell,
       | but in the cases where they aren't they also provide the base for
       | breaking enough control mechanisms that would otherwise prevent
       | cancer.
       | 
       | Most cancer cells are genetically unstable, some mechanisms that
       | usually reduce mutation rates are broken in them. And this
       | enables them to accumulate the mass of mutations they need to
       | actually become cancer.
       | 
       | The most striking hypothesis I read in that chapter was that
       | telomere shortening could actually help a cell to become
       | cancerous. I've no idea whether that idea help up, but it was
       | pretty much the opposite of what I expected. The basic idea is
       | that for cells that have a way to evade the usual stop of cell
       | division for short telomeres, this becomes an advantage. The
       | cells still divide, shortening telomeres so much that it
       | destabilizes the genome. If the cell can survive that, it gains a
       | large amount of the kind of genetic instability that is needed
       | for it to become cancerous.
        
         | asdff wrote:
         | A big issue is turning on things that shouldn't be turned on. A
         | good way to imagine the chromosomes is like they are
         | independent scripts with blocks of code. Some of the code is
         | functional, some of it is code rot that is best left commented
         | out. When you get a mutation that breaks the processes keeping
         | the integrity of this codebase together, you end up sometimes
         | seeing chunks of code cut and pasted around where it shouldn't
         | be. Chunks fused together or separated, inverted, duplicated,
         | removed entirely. This might result in code that should
         | normally be commented out becoming uncommented and causing a
         | lot of harm to the host.
        
           | hotpotamus wrote:
           | This comment reminds me of the first time I saw genetic code
           | in github and realized that the analogy of computer code to
           | genetic code is almost not an analogy because on some level
           | they're the same thing. I find it interesting but
           | uncomfortable.
        
             | agumonkey wrote:
             | code but we don't have the interpreter figured out yet
        
             | m_fayer wrote:
             | The thought that makes me most uncomfortable is the idea
             | that we're reading code written by a dumb process, not a
             | living thing. Dumb physical processes shouldn't be able to
             | compose anything. It's like we broke into the universe's
             | private files and found an infinity of insane scribbling,
             | about us. It's uncanny.
        
       | VeninVidiaVicii wrote:
       | There's a related problem when you can diagnose a cancer really
       | early -- it's that you wind up, technically, living with cancer
       | for a longer time. Early diagnosis makes treatments look like
       | they're working better and better, when they might not be.
       | 
       | Newer treatments might actually be worse, but early diagnosis
       | makes them look more effective.
        
         | est31 wrote:
         | The rule of thumb with cancer is that the earlier you diagnose
         | it, the more treatable it is. So yes, please detect cancers as
         | early as possible.
        
           | the_af wrote:
           | I don't have a firm opinion but tend to agree with you,
           | _however_...
           | 
           | ...an article linked to here on HN many years ago argued that
           | sometimes early detection can lead to downgraded quality of
           | life. The examples they provided were of middle-age men
           | diagnosed with very early stage prostate cancer, which
           | sometimes led to surgery with debilitating complications
           | (like erectile dysfunction, incontinence, and others). The
           | article argued many of those cancers were effectively
           | harmless, that those men would have died of something else
           | after a long life without ever realizing they had cancer, and
           | that the treatment was considerably worse than the disease.
           | 
           | Of course, it could be argued that knowing is always better:
           | that the mistake in those cases was to perform unnecessary
           | surgery.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | Almost every elderly person has cancer. It's just that many
         | people die from something else first before those tiny
         | malignancies grow large enough to cause significant clinical
         | symptoms.
        
           | inglor_cz wrote:
           | Cancers are very diverse in this regard.
           | 
           | Prostate cancer is quasi-normal in men over 70 and usually
           | grows so slowly that it does not influence their lifespan.
           | 
           | Pancreatic cancer is deadly at any age and its treatment
           | would profit a lot from very early detection.
        
         | cbsmith wrote:
         | Except when you are analyzing treatments, you would want to
         | control for when & how the diagnosis was made...
        
       | bitL wrote:
       | How about taking DCA 300-1000mg/day as a prophylactic? Are there
       | any trials on that?
        
       | xyzzy21 wrote:
       | This is why you really need FDA testing of ANYTHING to be carried
       | out over years to decades.
        
         | kmonad wrote:
         | That does not follow in any way, and is just plain wrong.
        
         | The_rationalist wrote:
        
       | chasil wrote:
       | Well, this is a surprise:
       | 
       | "Using rates of mutation as a clock, some of them appear to go
       | back _even to before birth_ - the key JAK2V617F mutation, long
       | associated with these malignancies, is estimated to have shown up
       | anywhere from the 33rd week of gestation up to the age of 11. The
       | DNMT3 mutation, similarly, seems to have appeared from the 8th
       | week of gestation (!) out to about the age of 8. "
        
         | cpard wrote:
         | This is insane. Both my mother and grandmother died because of
         | myelofibrosis. My mother was suffering with related diseases
         | for almost 15 years before they diagnosed the symptoms as
         | myelofibrosis and after that doctors where still debating if
         | the disease was there since the beginning or not
        
         | possibleworlds wrote:
         | My two sisters and I all have diagnosed Polycythemia Vera with
         | the JAK2 mutation present. Neither parent have the mutation or
         | the disease. From what I understand PV is not supposed to be
         | hereditary and clusters like ours are very rare. In retrospect
         | the earliest signs (at the time slightly elevated platelets)
         | were present for me when I had a very bad bout of Epstein-Barr
         | in my early 20s and was getting regular blood counts done for
         | months, although the first diagnosis wasn't picked up until my
         | eldest sister was in her early 40s and the disease was non-
         | trivially advanced.
        
         | pazimzadeh wrote:
         | Not too surprising in theory. During development, the body
         | requires very fast growth. Very fast growth increases the
         | chance of mutations.
         | 
         | If the selective pressure to develop quickly diminishes, then I
         | would expect that uncontrolled growth (cancer) would be less
         | likely as well. It would be interesting to see if this is
         | observable in other animals (those with the shortest
         | development times, which require the fastest bursts of growth,
         | should be at higher risk for cancer or should have evolved
         | solutions like extra telomerases).
        
         | vmception wrote:
         | That is surprising.
         | 
         | One of the frustrating things about cancers is that nobody
         | knows the cancer's growth rate, how long from stage 1 to stage
         | 2 etc, when in reality they are just categories, aka "if you
         | have cancerous cells from your liver in your neck, then its
         | stage 4". The problem with this is that no interval of
         | preventative testing can be rationalized. You don't know if
         | once a decade, or once a year, or using your privilege to get
         | tests every 3 months would yield any help in early detection at
         | all! The medical professionals don't know either. "Cancer" is
         | obviously too broad, but even if you have a history of a
         | particular type of cancer in your lineage, you're still at the
         | same issue. We don't know if one cell flips to cancerous and
         | defeats your body's defenses for reproduction all the way to
         | stage 4 within 2 weeks, or whether it is over years.
         | 
         | Knowing that the contributing mutation can be 30-50 years prior
         | is really helpful, and can help doctors authorize the use of
         | their medical facilities more pointedly, while researchers
         | continue to isolate and make peer-reviewable preventative
         | measures that the holistic naturopaths can never do (because
         | they don't do peer review, there may and has been accidentally
         | salvagable parts of their form of medicine).
        
           | chasil wrote:
           | I think that finding a cancerous liver cell in your neck
           | means metastasis is happening, and the slow process is
           | assumed to be complete. Unless the immune system is attacking
           | these cells and their numbers are controlled, this would be
           | stage 4 (while I am not a physician, let alone an
           | oncologist).
           | 
           | I think that the best weapon that the general public has
           | against cancer is autophagy, triggered by keeping blood
           | glucose very low at least some of the time. Metabolic changes
           | that can awaken apoptosis might kill many of these mutation
           | carriers.
        
             | vmception wrote:
             | > I think that finding a cancerous liver cell in your neck
             | means metastasis is happening, and the slow process is
             | assumed to be complete.
             | 
             | To me thats what I said, that's what stage 4 means,
             | metastasized.
             | 
             | > I think that the best weapon that the general public has
             | against cancer is autophagy
             | 
             | One can wish
        
               | TedDoesntTalk wrote:
               | > One can wish
               | 
               | It's not really a wish anymore. There are studies showing
               | this, but I'm too busy to find them for you. Rhonda
               | Patrick at https://www.foundmyfitness.com/ has interviews
               | with various researchers on this topic. Here are some,
               | but this is by no means exhaustive:
               | 
               | https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/autophagy-and-
               | cancer...
               | 
               | https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/cancer-
               | manipulates-s...
               | 
               | https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/caloric-
               | restriction-...
               | 
               | My layman understanding is that healthy cells can
               | withstand the rigors of fasting and fasting-mimicking,
               | but many cancer cells cannot. They die.
        
             | Jimmc414 wrote:
             | >I think that the best weapon that the general public has
             | against cancer is autophagy, triggered by keeping blood
             | glucose very low at least some of the time. Metabolic
             | changes that can awaken apoptosis might kill many of these
             | mutation carriers.
             | 
             | Since fasting is the best way to induce autophagy, that
             | could explain the apparent negative correlation between
             | cancer rate and a country's food supply [.]
             | http://globalcancermap.com/ [.]
             | https://ourworldindata.org/food-supply
        
               | vmception wrote:
               | no, thats explained at how young people die, also related
               | to a country's food and water supply
               | 
               | Africa's average age is half of North America's, and
               | after controlling for infant mortality still so few other
               | people make it to the much higher life expectancy limit
               | (which is still 10-15 years lower than North America)
               | there that there isnt opportunity for cancer diagnosis to
               | rear up as often! Let alone be tested for cancer to
               | understand if that was an ailment or contributing
               | comorbidity.
        
               | appletrotter wrote:
               | Makes sense, but can you prove it?
        
               | vmception wrote:
               | which parts? you really want me to provide sources on
               | average age as well as life expectancy? you don't know
               | the accepted consensuses on why societies in the
               | continent of Africa operate in abysmal conditions to
               | support human life uninterrupted?
               | 
               | I don't think I'm compelled to provide that but I'm open
               | to counter theories
        
               | appletrotter wrote:
               | The counter theory is the comment that OP made. Your
               | response opens with a denial of OPs theory; this response
               | would be more effective with citations. Your theory makes
               | sense, but I just don't see why it has to be mutually
               | exclusive. Maybe they're both factors to varying degrees?
        
               | vmception wrote:
               | sure, I can accept a multipronged explanation, I already
               | acknowledged that both of our observations are related to
               | the food supply issues chronic on that continent, I don't
               | think their specific correlation has been studied though
               | so there's nothing to really say. My hypothesis is that
               | my observations (which have been studied and are actively
               | being addressed by many organizations) are going to have
               | a greater weight by mere deduction: there is nothing
               | unique enough about people in Africa that would make
               | cancer appear earlier, and since they die earlier there
               | and have worse preventative treatment to know other
               | upcoming ailments, the cancer wouldn't come up because
               | they're already dead from other basic infrastructure
               | issues.
               | 
               | What I'm reading is "hey here is this ailment people get
               | in their 60s, here's this continent where people barely
               | survive until their 60s, do you have a citation for why
               | people there don't frequently get that ailment there? we
               | should really study that"
        
           | dumb1224 wrote:
           | I'm not a cancer biologist but I work in the field of
           | supporting cancer research and targeted therapy. My naive
           | take is: the type of mutation and its effect on cancer
           | progression is still being studied heavily. A lot of the
           | understanding of biological pathways and functional impacts
           | of these mutations are being updated and very conservatively
           | corrected. From a systems biology point of view, the whole
           | body is so mechanistically complex in its response to
           | environmental and internal stress that it's a bit difficult
           | to predict outcome / prognosis. Important cancer pathways are
           | well studied and are usually involved in disease progression
           | but it is still very tissue type / biomarker categorisation
           | specific. The real driver mutations are being discovered for
           | each cancer type but the ultimate goal is be able to see the
           | big picture.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-01-20 23:00 UTC)