vaccinations, tick prevention etc. --and cancer?

[Beckysmom]

Since being told Becky had osteosarcoma, I have been questioning everything I ever well meaningly did for her.

I have in particular been wondering about Program use (ticks not a problem around here much, but fleas can be), and vaccinations, and other medicines, particularly heartworm medicine. She only had heartworm medicine once because she got very sick from it.

It is hard because I would have hated for her to die of parvo or distemper when very very young. and yet I wonder if some of this didn't set her up for a cancer in middle age.

One of my two cats is too feral to get any vet care at all (he went in once for neutering and bit, even though I warned them to be careful, and i was told that they would not like to see him again). And he is the one pet who is never ever sick. Occasionally is in fights, but doesn't seem to get abscesses from it. (he also eats the most natural diet,since a good bit of the time he spends hunting.) Meanwhile, the dog who had the most vet care, the most vaccines, is the one who dies prematurely.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

[Judi W]

I do. Osteo has been tentatively linked to bone injury sites but not to vaccines in any way. The origination site is often the site of a previous injury.

Yes, you are correct - if the dogs die of distemper or parvo at a young age, they will not live long enough to develop cancer.

Re your feral cat. The number of feral cats that die horrible deaths from rhino, feline luekemia, etc. is very high. I don't know how old your cat is, but feral cats are not long lived whereas house cats that are not allowed to roam and acquire communicable disease easily can live to 20 years or more. In cats (not dogs) there is evidence that the vaccination site is vulnerable to cancer. This is documented and limited vaccination of cats is recommended because of it however no such link has been shown in dogs nor is the cancer type that which is most commonly found in dogs.

Dogs did not live longer in the "ol days". The average pet or farm dog died when it sickened or became crippled and diagnostics were rarely performed. Animals in the wild do not live as long as domestic animals.

Those of us that ever lived in high heartworm areas have seen autopsy samples of hearts loaded with worms prior to preventative. Ditto with emaciated dogs loaded with mange or hook and tapes.

The reason some get away with avoiding vaccination is because the population is for the most part protected so exposure to disease is limited. That means thank your neighbors for protecting their animals and creating a barrier from communicable diseases.

[Beckysmom]

Hmmm.

Yes, the osteo WAS at an injury site. But is that the cause, or the weakened point that succumbs.?

Has osteosarcoma been long with us, or is it on the rise of late? Obviously if a dog died of infection early it did not live to die of cancer. But there are 2 and 4 year old dogs getting cancers. What is going on? Similar thing seems to be happening with cancer increasing among children. and young adults Surely this can't be attributed to dogs getting injured more now than they did in "the old days"?

Osteosarcoma itself, nevermind other cancers, is supposed to be the cause of death of 25% of all hounds according to one thing I read. That just seems astoundingly high, and to me raises the question of why.

I'd like to see some progressive studies done (ones where dogs are followed from the start, rather than retrospectively--though retrospective would be better than nothing to see actual statistical outcomes with various approaches in matched samples of dogs. (Possibly several groups of littermates, who continue to live in same geographic regions.) Clearly, what could be done would depend on such factors as whether a particular area was or was not extremely infested with heartworm. (We had had no heartworm in this area until last year when there were suddenly 5 cases in the town about 8 miles away--that is when I tried giving the medicine, but found it made my dog sick--allergic reaction.)

Anyway, such a study would need to look at all sorts of genetic and environmental factors. I gather that there is one being done on the genetic side that is looking for DNA samples (my dog's didn't qualify because she didn't have a definitely confirmed cancer). Does anyone know of any studies on the environmental side?

[Judi W]

The research study that I've referred people to on another thread is not just looking at genetic markers and DNA, but they are taking complete histories, diet, vaccinations, living accomodations etc. in an attempt to discover more about this disease. Efforrts are being made and research is being conducted.

I do believe that much of the incidence that we see reported now is because of the diagnostics that did not used to be available and people's willingness to investigate the cause of a problem with their animals. Whether the incidence is higher or not, I do not know as there was poor collection of data in the past as well as a lesser rate of investigation.

[Beckysmom]

Hi Judi W, You wrote "The research study that I've referred people to on another thread is not just looking at genetic markers and DNA, but they are taking complete histories, diet, vaccinations, living accomodations etc. in an attempt to discover more about this disease. Efforrts are being made and research is being conducted. "

However, when I wrote to the reference you gave, Jaime Mondiano (spelling?) wrote back:


"Unfortunately, there are strict criteria for participation in our study. The study requires submission of viable tumor, whole blood in an anticoagulant (”EDTA or “purple top” tubes), and standard of care therapy. It is designed to examine the molecular basis of the disease AND IS NOT A SURVEY OF LIFESTYLE OR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT." (Italics added)

Is there some other study going on that you know of that does look at environmental risk assessment? Or is Jaime Mondiano confused?

[Judi W]

Well darn and darn. When the study was implemented and we all sent in data sheets on well and afflicted dogs environment was a big part of the questionnaire!!!!!! (I had no-afflicted dogs that I sent in forms on) I am so sorry that I have misslead you (and myself as well). I'm going to check the CHF and see if there is another study in progress that takes such things into the database.

Please accept my apologies and I'll see if I can find out about the other cancer research studies.