The growing incidence of cancer: Role of lifestyle and screening detection (Review)

Department of Medical Oncology, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, University of Paris, Paris, France.
International Journal of Oncology (Impact Factor: 3.03). 05/2007; 30(5):1037-49. DOI: 10.3892/ijo.30.5.1037
Source: PubMed


The increasing incidence of a variety of cancers after the Second World War confronts scientists with the question of their origin. In Western countries, expansion and ageing of the population, as well as progress in cancer detection using new diagnostic and screening tests cannot fully account for the observed growing incidence of cancer. Our hypothesis is that environmental factors play a more important role in cancer genesis than it is usually agreed: i) over the last 2-3 decades, alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking in men have significantly decreased; ii) obesity is increasing in many countries, but the growing incidence of cancer also concerns cancers not related to obesity nor to other lifestyle-related factors; iii) there is evidence that the environment has changed over the same time scale as the recent rise in cancer incidence, and that this change included the accumulation of many new carcinogenic factors in the environment; iv) genetic susceptibility to cancer due to genetic polymorphism cannot have changed over one generation and actually favours the role of exogenous factors through gene-environment interactions; v) age is not the unique factor to be considered since the rising incidence of cancers is seen across all age categories, including children; vi) the fetus is specifically vulnerable to exogenous factors. A fetal exposure during a critical window period may explain why current epidemiological studies may be negative in adults. We therefore propose that the involuntary exposure to many carcinogens in the environment contributes to the rising trend in cancer incidence.

9 Reads
  • Source
    • "While the number of total cancer is increasing, the trend of certain cancers is changing in developed and developing countries. In developed countries, the trend is declining [10] since infections by microorganisms are declining and screening facilities are available. In Singapore, there was an average annual increase of 3.6% for breast cancers in women in the 1988–1992 period [11]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Honey and cancer has a sustainable inverse relationship. Carcinogenesis is a multistep process and has multifactorial causes. Among these are low immune status, chronic infection, chronic inflammation, chronic non healing ulcers, obesity, and so forth. There is now a sizeable evidence that honey is a natural immune booster, natural anti-inflammatory agent, natural antimicrobial agent, natural cancer "vaccine," and natural promoter for healing chronic ulcers and wounds. Though honey has substances of which the most predominant is a mixture of sugars, which itself is thought to be carcinogenic, it is understandable that its beneficial effect as anticancer agent raises skeptics. The positive scientific evidence for anticancer properties of honey is growing. The mechanism on how honey has anticancer effect is an area of great interest. Among the mechanisms suggested are inhibition of cell proliferation, induction of apoptosis, and cell-cycle arrest. Honey and cancer has sustainable inverse relationship in the setting of developing nations where resources for cancer prevention and treatment are limited.
    Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 06/2012; 2012(1):410406. DOI:10.1155/2012/410406 · 1.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Lifetime exposure to endogenous androgens and estrogens has been suggested to be a risk factor for prostate cancer [45] [46], but this endogenous model does not fit in the results of the present study showing a continued increase of cancer incidence since 1985. We have previously distinguished lifestyle-related risk factors from environmental cancer-causing agents and defined the latter as exogenous physical, chemical, and biological carcinogens or cocarcinogens [2] [4] [47]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer incidence is steadily increasing in many developed countries. Because insular populations present unique ethnic, geographical, and environmental characteristics, we analyzed the evolution of prostate cancer age-adjusted world standardized incidence rates in Martinique in comparison with that of metropolitan France. We also compared prostate cancer incidence rates, and lifestyle-related and socioeconomic markers such as life expectancy, dietary energy, and fat supply and consumption, with those in other Caribbean islands, France, UK, Sweden, and USA. The incidence rate of prostate cancer in Martinique is one of the highest reported worldwide; it is continuously growing since 1985 in an exponential mode, and despite a similar screening detection process and lifestyle-related behaviour, it is constantly at a higher level than in metropolitan France. However, Caribbean populations that are genetically close to that of Martinique have generally much lower incidence of prostate cancer. We found no correlation between prostate cancer incidence rates, life expectancy, and diet westernization. Since the Caribbean African descent-associated genetic susceptibility factor would have remained constant during the 1980-2005, we suggest that in Martinique some environmental change including the intensive use of carcinogenic organochlorine pesticides might have occurred as key determinant of the persisting highly growing incidence of prostate cancer.
    11/2011; 2011:819010. DOI:10.1155/2011/819010
  • Source
    • "ISSN 1062–936X print/ISSN 1029–046X online ß 2010 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/10629361003773930 (WHO), the worldwide cancer burden is set to increase by as much as 50% by the year 2020, unless further preventive measures are put into practice [4] [5]. Many human tumour cases are caused by exogenous (environmental) chemical agents [7], which has led to considerable efforts and policies aimed at eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, human exposure to potential carcinogens [8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Worldwide, legislative and governmental efforts are focusing on establishing simple screening tools for identifying those chemicals most likely to cause adverse effects without experimentally testing all chemicals of regulatory concern. This is because even the most basic biological testing of compounds of concern, apart from requiring a huge number of test animals, would be neither resource nor time effective. Thus, alternative approaches such as the one proposed here, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modelling, are increasingly being used for identifying the potential health hazards and subsequent regulation of new industrial chemicals. This paper follows up on our earlier work that demonstrated the use of the TOPological Substructural MOlecular DEsign (TOPS-MODE) approach to QSAR modelling for predictions of the carcinogenic potency of nitroso compounds. The data set comprises 56 nitroso compounds which have been bio-assayed in female rats and administered by the oral water route. The QSAR model was able to account for about 81% of the variance in the experimental activity and exhibited good cross-validation statistics. A reasonable interpretation of the TOPS-MODE descriptors was achieved by means of bond contributions, which in turn afforded the recognition of structural alerts (SAs) regarding carcinogenicity. A comparison of the SAs obtained from different data sets showed that experimental factors, such as the sex and the oral administration route, exert a major influence on the carcinogenicity of nitroso compounds. The present and previous QSAR models combined together provide a reliable tool for estimating the carcinogenic potency of yet untested nitroso compounds and they should allow the identification of SAs, which can be used as the basis of prediction systems for the rodent carcinogenicity of these compounds.
    SAR and QSAR in environmental research 04/2010; 21(3-4):277-304. DOI:10.1080/10629361003773930 · 1.60 Impact Factor
Show more