AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
New one-in-two cancer figure sounds scarier than it is - health - 04 February 2015 - New Scientist@import "/css/gridmain.css"; @import "/css/article.css";@import "/css/comlist.css";@import "/data/images/ns/haas/haas.css";/* specific to this article view */#maincol {border-top:solid #A7A7A7 1px; padding-top:15px;}/* Basic commenting CSS*/.combx {margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:10px 20px 10px 10px;}#compnl {border-top:solid #A7A7A7 1px;}/* comment styles for article page only *//* form styles */#comform {margin:20px 50px 20px 10px;}#comform label{width: 90px;text-align: right;}#comform div.userhelp {margin:0 0 2px 115px;}#comform input.textinput, #comform textarea {width:300px;}#comform div.floatclear, #comformlogin div.floatclear {margin-bottom:10px;}#comform input#comcancel{margin:0 10px 0 0;}#comform input#compreview{margin:0 10px 0 0;}#comform textarea {height:95px;}#comformlogin {margin:20px 100px 20px 100px;}#comformlogin label{width: 120px;}#comformlogin input.textinput {width:150px;}#snv_health a {background: url('/img/bg/snv_health.jpg') no-repeat; color:#fff;}/* article social media */#sharebtns {width:440px; margin-left:10px; margin-bottom:20px; padding:15px 10px 15px 10px; background:#F2F2F2;}#sharebtns div.floatleft {margin-right:10px;}#sharebtns .stumble {margin-top:1px;}.grpTools img {margin-right:8px; margin-top:9px;}#fblike {margin-top:41px;}
Health Log inEmailPassword Remember meYour login is case sensitive
I have forgotten my password
Register nowActivate my subscriptionInstitutional loginAthens logincloseMy New ScientistHomeNewsIn-Depth ArticlesOpinionCultureLabGalleriesTopic GuidesLast WordSubscribeDatingLook for Science JobsSPACETECHENVIRONMENTHEALTHLIFEPHYSICS&MATHSCIENCE IN SOCIETYCookies & PrivacyHome|Health|News
New one-in-two cancer figure sounds scarier than it is15:28 04 February 2015 byPenny SarchetFor similar stories, visit theCancerTopic GuideAt least one in two. If you were born in the UK, that is the likelihood you'll be diagnosed with cancer at some point, according to new research funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK). The estimate replaces the well-known one-in-three statistic for lifetime cancer risk. What lies behind the change? One-in-three to one-in-two – that's quite an increase. What has caused the big leap in cancer risk?The new estimate does not reflect some dramatic change in how many of us are dying from cancer since the one-in-three figure was published; rather, it's a correction to that figure. The one-in-three estimate came from a previous CRUK calculation published in 2011, which used a different method to come up with lifetime risk, based on a smaller study group. It looked at UK cancer cases between 2009 and 2011 and used this to calculate the risk. This is now considered an underestimate, as the short time frame doesn't take into account how cancer rates have been changing. The one-in-two figure attempts to capture how lifestyle and disease trends change over decades. Where does the new figure come from?
It comes from tracking cancer incidence over whole lifetimes for people born in the UK between 1930 and 1960. Pulling together data from the Office of National Statistics and the UK's national cancer registries revealed that a man born in 1930 has a 38.5 per cent risk of developing cancer during his lifetime, whereas a man born in 1960 has a 53.5 per cent risk. In women, the risk was 36.7 per cent for those born in 1930, and 47.5 per cent for those born thirty years later. Assuming that this upward trend in cancer incidence continues, the researchers conclude that people born since 1960 will have at least a one-in-two chance of getting cancer over their lifetime. Is it sensible to assume that increasing numbers of us will die from cancer?
It's not too much of a stretch. Some risk factors such as exposure to asbestos have been declining, but others have increased, says Isabelle Soerjomataram from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. "There are many other cancer risk factors common in industrialised countries which we know have increased over the same period of time, for example, higher body weight and higher exposure to UV. Populations continue to adopt unhealthy lifestyles that are known to increase cancer risks," she says. Why are people born in 1960 so much more likely to get cancer than people born thirty years earlier?
The ones born in 1960 are likely to live longer. Older people have had more time to acquire genetic mutations, so are more likely to develop the disease. The longer we live, the more cases of cancer we'll see. People are dying less and less from other diseases and are therefore more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, says Soerjomataram. Another factor is improvement in our ability to detect cancer. Techniques like breast-cancer screening and testing for prostate cancer markers mean cancers are more likely to be identified in the first place, and often at a younger age, which also changes the statistics. We shouldn't forget that more people are also surviving cancer. Today half of people newly diagnosed with the disease will live for more than 10 years. In the early 1970s, the corresponding survival rate was only 24 per cent. Can you improve your odds of not getting cancer?
Certainly. More than 40 per cent of cancers diagnosed in the UK in 2010 were associated with lifestyle and environmental factors – meaning you can take some control of your own chances. Unsurprisingly, smoking was the worst offender: nearly 20 per cent of all cancer diagnoses that year were smokers. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has drawn up a code against cancer, which recommends 11 other ways you can reduce your risk. Journal reference: British Journal of Cancer, DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.606
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to. 
Longer lifespans have much to do with the rising incidence of cancer (Image: Steve Gschmeissner/SPL)ADVERTISEMENTMoreLatest newsBoth cause and cure for diabetes could be in your gut16:16 06 February 2015Changes in children's gut microbes could signal the onset of type-1 diabetes, but engineered probiotic bacteria could help treat the disease
Crossing the germ line – facing genetics' great taboo
13:38 06 February 2015Let's stop drawing lines in the sand when it comes to genetically modifying people and talk about engineering everybody, says Michael Le Page
Technology driving rise in abortions of girls in India
16:00 05 February 2015Modernisation is not helping rebalance India's sex ratio. In fact, with 6 million fewer girls born between 2001 and 2011, it is making it worse
Doc-watcher spots when physicians stop listening
11:32 05 February 2015As screen use becomes ever more ubiquitous in healthcare, doctors may have a hard time focusing on patients during consultations. Lab-in-a-Box aims to help
see all related stories
MoreLatest newsPluto's evaporating ice leaves it with a blank face18:00 06 February 2015Astronomers hoped Pluto's craters would hold a record of impacts from its neighbours, which are too small to see – a new study dashes those hopes
The secret of the world's largest seed revealed
17:32 06 February 2015Charismatic coco de mer palm trees of Seychelles seem to be unique among plants in caring for their seedlings with a novel use of leaves
Today on New Scientist17:30 06 February 2015All the latest on newscientist.com: the secret life of your home, breaking the great genetic taboo, ferocious lemming, first stars get younger and more
Both cause and cure for diabetes could be in your gut16:16 06 February 2015Changes in children's gut microbes could signal the onset of type-1 diabetes, but engineered probiotic bacteria could help treat the disease
see all latest news
Most read The island paradise overrun by giant cannibals
Lilac and turquoise are as basic as red and orange Great Barrier Reef set for surprise electoral win Meet – and hear – the world's first bilingual chimps Mushroom kills with cookie cutter trick Most read FOLLOW USGet editors' picks in your social streamsThis week's issueSubscribe
For exclusive news and expert analysis, subscribe to New Scientist.
Gain full online accessCurrent issue contentContent of past issues07 February 2015ADVERTISEMENTBack to topLoginEmailPassword Remember meYour login is case sensitive
I have forgotten my password
Register nowActivate my subscriptionInstitutional loginAthens logincloseAbout usNew ScientistSyndicationRecruitment AdvertisingStaff at New ScientistAdvertiseRBI JobsUser HelpContact UsFAQ / HelpDisclaimerTs & CsCookiesPrivacy PolicySubscriptionsSubscribeRenewGift subscriptionStudent SubscriptionMy accountBack issuesThe CollectionThe Anti-ZooLinksSite MapBrowse all articlesMagazine archiveNewScientistJobsThe Last WordRSS FeedsOnline StoreiOS & Android appsLow-bandwidth siteScience JobsSearch all JobsBiology JobsChemistry JobsClinical JobsEarth & Environment JobsEngineering JobsMaths & IT JobsCareers Advice? Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.View the original article here
0 comments
Post a Comment