Tendency to cancer, is it, can it be, inherited?

[singlecoil]

And if it can, would it be OK for a woman whose mother and uncle both had cancer to continue having children?

[Windsorphil]

Depends on the type of cancers, lifestyles and a lot of other variables, but there are certainly genetic links...

[LadyHayles]

I know that there is a specific gene which tends to be linked to breast cancer but not sure about other cancers. My brother's girlfriend has a huge history of breast cancer in her family and is currently undergoing the tests to see if she has the gene present in her - if she has it then my niece will have to be tested when she's older also.

[zippy500]

As nasty as cancer is, new breakthroughs are being made every year. So that shouldnt stop a woman wanting kiddies. Nothing is guaranteed in life, apart from we all die of something one day and Dennis Norden will outlive us all.

[Oversteer]

I'm not a medical expert but I believe that there is a genetic link to the
likelihood of suffering from cancer. I really wouldn't think that this should
prevent a person from having children but if this is a cause for concern you
ought to look into it in more detail. I'm sure there are plenty of support
web sites that specialise in this area. All the best, don't worry unduly.

[Timmy35]

LadyHayles said:

I know that there is a specific gene which tends to be linked to breast cancer but not sure about other cancers.

I thought they were close to isolating a single common gene that is at the root of all cancers, it's to do with cell replication, and the flipside is that in a controlled form using this gene could revolutionise the treatment of ageing too.

Isn't the basic message behind cancers one of genetic tendancy exacerbated by lifestyle or certain viral infections?

[mattikake]

"Tendency to cancer, is it, can it be, inherited?"

Apart from some exposure to something that damages your DNA directly like Gamma raditation, cancer is only ever inherited.

Cancer is a genetic 'malfunction'. Well, I say 'malfunction' but sometimes I do wonder if this is an extra built-in expirey date security for life...

[singlecoil]

So is it Ok for the woman mentioned in the Op to continue having children?

[s2art]

mattikake said:

Apart from some exposure to something that damages your DNA directly like Gamma raditation, cancer is only ever inherited.

Strange then that things like smoking are said to be a cause of cancer. Not to mention all the other mutagens that people can be exposed to.
Like to see a cite where it indicates that most cancers are inherited.

[Jinx]

mattikake said:

Well, I say 'malfunction' but sometimes I do wonder if this is an extra built-in expirey date security for life...

If anything it's the opposite - cancer is due to cell apoptosis malfunction so instead of a cell "dying" when it should it continues to propagate.

[Munter]

Is the real question "Should we or should we not pass on defective genetics to a future generation?"

Lots of people will have different views on that.

For instance if we all have the same defect BUT it only shows up in a few. It'll make no difference who breeds. It'll be passed on.

If it's a select portion of the population, then you could try and identify the signs and educate against breeding, but whos to say that either
A:We wont find a fix in the next generations lifetime
B:The weakness in the human design that allowed the defective genetics in the 1st place wont allow the same defect to happen again after a short period anyway.

I doubt theres anybody out there with the perfect genes. We must bumble on as best we can and let nature decide if we are doing a good job or not.

[Timmy35]

Jinx said:

mattikake said:

Well, I say 'malfunction' but sometimes I do wonder if this is an extra built-in expirey date security for life...

If anything it's the opposite - cancer is due to cell apoptosis malfunction so instead of a cell "dying" when it should it continues to propagate.

Hence the idea that the same gene may hold the key to preventing and even reversing the ageing process.

[drivin_me_nuts]

s2art said:

mattikake said:

Apart from some exposure to something that damages your DNA directly like Gamma raditation, cancer is only ever inherited.

Strange then that things like smoking are said to be a cause of cancer. Not to mention all the other mutagens that people can be exposed to.
Like to see a cite where it indicates that most cancers are inherited.

... the relationship between smoking and 'cause' is a highly debatable one. There is an increased risk of developing cancers in those who smoke, but you will find very few scientists would directly say that smoking causes cancer; they leave statements like that to politicians, perhaps in the same way that speeding causes accidents.

Reproducing will always introduce the risk of mutation, that's the beauty and the risk in cell division. What is more significant is the numbers. For example parent X has a 1 in 10,000 chance of developing cancer A, parent B has a 1 in 1000 chance of developing cancer B. Should they not have children because of the combined risk to their child? Well surely that's for them to decide and no one else. Certainly others can play moral judgement, but ultimately the choice or right and wrong is theirs alone.

[mechsympathy]

Munter said:

Lots of people will have different views on that.

The Nazis were keen on eugenics IIRC.

It depends on the type of cancer. Did mother and uncle have the same type, or did the uncle develop lung cancer but have a 45 year 40 a day habit?

Even if cancer does have a geneic link, it's a tendency to cancer rather than a definite link.

[MilnerR]

Timmy35 said:

LadyHayles said:

I know that there is a specific gene which tends to be linked to breast cancer but not sure about other cancers.

I thought they were close to isolating a single common gene that is at the root of all cancers, it's to do with cell replication, and the flipside is that in a controlled form using this gene could revolutionise the treatment of ageing too.

Isn't the basic message behind cancers one of genetic tendancy exacerbated by lifestyle or certain viral infections?

Cancer development is a malfunction of the normal processes involved in cell division and repair so obviously like every other biochemical function of your body it is controlled by your genetic make-up. There are many hundreds if not thousands of genes that are known to play a role, they can be broadly split into oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes.

To stick with the car theme you can look upon oncogenes as the accelerator pedal and tumour suppressor genes as the brake. Therefore you can have mutations in an oncogene that would predispose you to having cancer, however as long as you had good functional tumour suppressor genes then it is less likely that a tumour will be produced, in other words if your accelerator pedal gets stuck down you can still save yourself if your brakes are good enough. However if you have mutations in an oncogene and a tumour suppressor gene then it is akin to having your throttle stuck open and no brakes, the most aggressive cancers generally have multiple genetic factors, although some genetic mutations (such as those seen in the transcription factor p53) are present in a lot of tumours. The fact that most cancers require multiple genetic (and environmental) mishaps to occur makes it unlikely that simple straight-forward causes will ever be found. It's luck of the draw really, most cancers happen in later life after child-bearing age so there's no evolutionary pressure to select out these genetic mutations. In the end you've got to die of something, the time is determined by your environment and your genes.

Edited by MilnerR on Monday 6th October 13:50

[MrVelox]

Former US President Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of this...

His Father died of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma
He had 2 Sisters and a Brother. All died of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

That is absolutely NOT conincidence. Deadly as it is, Pancreatic Cancer is still relatively rare.

[mattikake]

Jinx said:

mattikake said:

Well, I say 'malfunction' but sometimes I do wonder if this is an extra built-in expirey date security for life...

If anything it's the opposite - cancer is due to cell apoptosis malfunction so instead of a cell "dying" when it should it continues to propagate.

I meant on a macroscopic level, not a cellular level. Life has many fail-safe devices to ensure that you will expire.

[Jinx]

mattikake said:

I meant on a macroscopic level, not a cellular level. Life has many fail-safe devices to ensure that you will expire.

Are you suggesting a pre-determined death date? That life should only go on for so long? Perhaps guided by some higher force?

[singlecoil]

Jinx said:

mattikake said:

I meant on a macroscopic level, not a cellular level. Life has many fail-safe devices to ensure that you will expire.

Are you suggesting a pre-determined death date? That life should only go on for so long? Perhaps guided by some higher force?

That'll be Mother Nature. Plenty of reasons why she would prefer organisms to last only long enough to reproduce, and for their progeny to take over

[bodhi]

No its all caused by Passive Smoking. As are AIDS, Ebola Tyhpoid, Gonorhhea,the common cold, the credit crunch, the death of the dinosaurs and the crucifixtion of christ.

Oh wait no, that's all bks. Not sure about how inherited it is, but speaking to my sister who's a GP people have a level of predispostition to it. A non-smoker who is predisposed to lung cancer is far more likely to suffer from it than a smoker who isn't. She still wants me to quit smoking, but she'll also admit smokers aren't the death dealers the government makes them out to be. Alcohol seems to cause far more problems these days....