CSN Login
Members Online: 7

You are here

New study on meat intake and colorectal cancer

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

Once again, from the "for what its worth" department, here is a study with mixed and interesting results about meat intake and colorectal cancer: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16546628.2017.1341810

In the present study, high intake of pork was associated with increased risk of CRC, and especially with colon cancer in women. In contrast, high intake of beef was associated with decreased risk of colon cancer, whereas it was associated with increased risk of rectal cancer in men. Furthermore, there was a trend for increased risk of CRC with higher intake of processed meat among the men, mainly driven by colon cancer. Fish intake was inversely associated with rectal cancer.

Annabelle41415's picture
Annabelle41415
Posts: 6514
Joined: Feb 2009

To me these studies are worthless.  I've ate pretty healthy all my life.  Ate more steak than pork, ate more Chicken and Turkey and still got cancer.  These studies are useless because everything that I've done didn't work.  I'll never put my life in the hands of experts as I'm going to live my life and enjoy every moment of it.  If I'm craving a steak, fish, pork chop or drum stick I'll eat it.  If I'm craving ice cream, pie, or cheesecake, I'm eating it.  When asking my doctor if anything in my past was wrong he said "no" nothing.  So "for what is worth" department I'm saying live life the way you see fit.  Love it, because this is the only one you have.

Hugs!  Kim

JanJan63's picture
JanJan63
Posts: 2482
Joined: Sep 2014

I agree with Kim. Due to always having IBS I never ate the way they say not to. I didn't even eat processed foods as a child more than rarely because it was a treat to have a hot dog or weiners and beans or something like that. My mom was a stay at hom mom and everything was made from scratch. As an adult I had the IBS and was unable to eat processed foods or ice cream or rich foods at all because it made it so much worse. And I never ate burned parts of barbequed steaks, I've read that that's carcinogenic. There's really no explanation for me getting it. I think it's just sheer bad luck. 

Jan

Woodytele
Posts: 163
Joined: Apr 2017

i ate a salad with my dinner everyday, kept myself in shape, and still got hit with cancer, Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones are still going strong smoking packs of cigarettes all day, things happen to people, there is not always a logical reason. 

EissetB
Posts: 135
Joined: Apr 2017

I had the cancer because I didn't see my GI when I had to. I've been good to myself with organics. I even avoided to eat out. It is how you listen to your body. I mean, that's how I look at it.

coloCan
Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct 2009

for lung cancer....

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

Actually the purpose of my posting this is to relieve guilt and blame that some might feel because they ate red meat or something else.  We each will make our way forward in the best way we know how.  But I often hear people questioning how they got here and whether they did something wrong.  This is meant to address that.

lp1964's picture
lp1964
Posts: 1240
Joined: Jun 2013

In my opinion denying that studies and statistics are useless because they don't work in every individual case is not helpful. Just because a smoker never had lung cancer doesn't mean that smoking doesn't increase the chance of getting lung cancer. Even in extreme cases like the atomic bombs in Japan not everybody got cancer from the radiation but thousands did. It's well known that in countries where smoked meats and fish products are consumed more the incidents of colorectal cancer is higher. 

It may give us a false sense of security and may decrease the level of guilt to bring up the exception to the rule, but I cannot tell my daughter to disregard the studies and statistical data and go ahead and smoke, consume tons of smoked red meat and lay out in the sun without protection, because your grandpa did all that and still lived to be 80. Carcinigens only increase the chance of getting cancer, but still worth considering if we care about our health or our loved one's. We carefully look at statistical data when considering chemo knowing it well that it only increases the chance, but doesn't guarantee of getting rid of our cancer.

Laz

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

Thanks, Laz, I appreciate your comment.  I made a separate post on this here: https://csn.cancer.org/node/311453  I think it appropriate that we all exercise a bit of restraint and respect for the opinions of others.

lp1964's picture
lp1964
Posts: 1240
Joined: Jun 2013

...I started my reply with "In my opinion...".

Im a doctor myself and I will not hide the fact from my patients that for example chewing tobacco will increase the chance of getting oral cancer. That would be disservice to my patients and they need to be informed. 

Laz

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

The ER doctor asked me if I was a big meat eater when she told me that it was likely cancer. I indicated that I wasn't though I did eat it in the past. The studies that I've read recently indicate that cancer is 2/3rds random stuff so, yes, you might be able to control the other 1/3rd. It doesn't really matter to me right now though because I have it and I have to deal with it.

My personal hunch is that the flu was a factor. But I only have a sample size of two on that one.

benben
Posts: 6
Joined: Aug 2017

It's been well known for 20+ years that excessive animal protein consumption increasesed risk of cancer.

China Study for example suggests 10-15% animal protein in diet show significant reduction to cancer risk.

So no more than 15% of caloric intake should come from animal proteins, and the more processed the meat, the more risk of cancer induciton.

My Oncologist believes that diet has little to do with colon cancer, perhaps a little, but mostly its just a bad mix of things coming together simultaneously to allow cancer to spawn.

Such as exposure to carinogen, surpressed immune system (either from prolonged flue, pneumonia, mono - whatever), heridatary predispositions, diet,  weight, excercise, etc..

I had times (maybe 3) that I went on atkins and ate nearly 80% meat.  That was probably not such a good idea, other than that after hearing about the china study from my Doctor girlfriend at the time.  I drastically reduced animal protein consumption and my overall health improved.  I also enjoyed that steak much more when it was less frequent.

My other factors, weigh, smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle, alchol consumption - none of those factors played a role for me.  Very active, good BMI range, don't smoke, don't drink.

I've heard from many a vegan, that have had colorectal cancer.  So diet may be a factor, it's probably quite minimal.

During chemo/radiation treatment it's important to get high levels of protein, and unfortunately that means an increase in meats.

High fiber diets unfortunately are not so kind to those of us who've had LAR procedures.  But I would suggest keeping up with healthy diets as much as possible post treatments.

 

good luck to all.

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

It is interesting that in the China study he used milk protien, casien or something like that, with the rats.  For that reason many people shy away from milk.  However, for colorectal cancer recurrence (not initial occurrence) there is evidence that milk consumption reduces the risk.  http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2014.55.3024

"postdiagnosis total calcium intake was inversely associated with all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] for those in the highest relative to the lowest quartiles, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98; Ptrend = .02) and associated with marginally statistically significant reduced colorectal cancer-specific mortality (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.05; Ptrend = .01). An inverse association with all-cause mortality was also observed for postdiagnosis milk intake (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; Ptrend = .02), but not vitamin D intake." (Calcium over 1156 milligrams a day: my note)

betula's picture
betula
Posts: 86
Joined: Mar 2017

I find results of studies confusing.  Whether it be regarding cancer, intake of caffeine, organics, etc.  One study tells us they are bad for us and the next tells us they are good for us.  I know people who seem to be in a constant search for the perfect diet to improve or maintain good health.  First they were on plant based diet, then gluten and dairy free, then eating based on blood type.  Uggh.  My fall back postion continues to be everything in moderation with some exceptions of course such as tobacco. 

While saw palmetto may have helped some, milk proteins may have been the key for some one else, baby asprin some one else...who knows.  Some find comfort in following these recommendations which is absolutely fine.  No judgement here.  I find the more I research I do, the more stressed I become and have to step away and live life and be happy for what is happening today.  I know I cannot control everything and most difficult for me is not having the answers to some of the questions I have regarding my husbands cancer, both cause and future outcome.  We all have to do what makes us feel comfortable, both the patient and the caregiver.

Enjoy the weekend,

Betsy

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

Agreed.  There is a morass of information and each of us choose our route independently.  However, from my perspective there is a valuable body of research on colorectal cancer and recurrence and there are definite trends in the research that are consistent accross the studies.  For example, there is no doubt exercise and a healthy diet are valuable.  Further, healthy intake of Vitamin D and "bone" supplements like glucosamine/chondroitin/MSM and calcium are consistently beneficial.  As for other supplements, the results are preliminary, but what really could be the harm in taking or eating curcumin?  What is the risk in eating fish or tree nuts?  For me, it is a risk/benefit analysis and my approach is to do all that I can to maximize my odds of avoiding a recurrence of the cancer.

Annabelle41415's picture
Annabelle41415
Posts: 6514
Joined: Feb 2009

He tried everything (God Bless him) and went to every clinic around the world.  He actually did the coffee enemas and clinical trials in Germany.  He spent 100,000 and even more on treatment.  If you ever get a chance to look at his posts (if they haven't been deleted) look.  He was an amazing person that was in search of the perfect cure. 

Kim

PamRav's picture
PamRav
Posts: 280
Joined: Jan 2017

I went to a GI cancer symposium this summer.  The expert doc there said there are only four known things that help prevent a reoccurrence 

eating tree nuts, exercise, vitaminD, and aspirin.   

Take it for what its worth 

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

Those patients who consumed two or more servings of nuts per week had a 42% decreased risk for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37–0.92; P = .03 for trend) and a 57% decreased risk for death (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25–0.74; P = .01 for trend) compared with patients who abstained from nuts.

http://www.cancernetwork.com/asco/nut-consumption-reduced-risk-colon-cancer-recurrence-death

BTW, I believe that the base study was for tree nuts and stuff like peanuts may not have the beneficial aspects of the other stuff.

Exercise I'm going to do anyways. I'll have to look into the vitamins.

Cindy225's picture
Cindy225
Posts: 172
Joined: Feb 2017

Since on this journey I'm all in for tree nuts, glucosamine, vitamin D, coffee and exercise. (Red wine, too!) Finally, able to resume more activity, eat tree nuts and drink coffee after reversing my ileostomy three weeks ago. So grateful for suggestions to live a healthy lifestyle and now have the ability and control to do it. So keep those research links coming!  :-)

Cindy

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

I have no plans to stop.  From my perspective, my obligation is to make the best choices based on the information I have or can obtain.  How others live is up to them, but this is my course.  Hopefully I will have time to do a write a comprehensive post updating strategies in the not too distant future.  Cheers.

Annabelle41415's picture
Annabelle41415
Posts: 6514
Joined: Feb 2009

I do all that too (except the red wine I'm only a white wine woman LOL).  Glad to hear of your reversal.  Ask me privately if you have any questions about that reversal as I've had mine for several years.  Hope you feel better every day.

Hugs!  Kim

PamRav's picture
PamRav
Posts: 280
Joined: Jan 2017

peanuts won't help.   Only tree nuts.  

Before I was diagnosed I was craving walnuts like crazy. I went through bag after bag.  Apparently my body knew something I didn't. 

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

Tree nuts include, but are not limited to, almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, chestnuts, filberts/hazelnuts, macadamia nuts, pecans, pistachios, pine nuts, shea nuts and walnuts. -- Wikipedia

I find Walnunts kind of dry for eating but I love hazelnuts, macadamia nuts and pistachios and like Almonds, Cashews, and pecans. But between all of those nuts, there should be something for everyone.

Blue Zone stuff (communites that live to 100): greens, beans, nuts and grains.

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

It's interesting to see that trees account for two of the four items on the list. Aspirin is similar to a chemical found in willow tree bark.

I had a look at a study on Vitamin D3 in another forum and the study indicated that return of cancer after chemo/radiation was two months longer with an inital dose of 8000 iu/day and then a maintenance does of 4000 iu/day. The difference in two months is significant to state that there is a difference but I'd want a lot more than two months. Still, every bit helps.

These are more like the odds I'm looking for and I'd love to stack them together. Anyone have research papers on aspirin?

 

 

 

However, on closer investigation, the researchers found that only tree nut consumption offered benefits; the risk of colon cancer recurrence was 46 percent lower for patients who ate at least 2 ounces of tree nuts each week, while the risk of death was 53 percent lower.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317534.php

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

The aspirin reseach seems to me to be indicating it is only effective for certain strains of colorectal cancer.  The problem for me is that they will not do the lab work to tell me what strain I have, they say they will only do that if I move to stage 4.  The U.S. government has recommended that people between 50 & 59 take a baby aspirin a day (that's me) and since I do not know my cancer type, when you group the types together, there is still a significant statistical advantage to taking the pill.  Here are some of my somewhat disorganized notes on the subject:

 

ASPIRIN: Inconclusive effect, but probably some benefit–low dose about 30% benefit, may be dependant on the type of cancer.

In the CALGB 89803 cohort of stage III colon cancer patients, regular aspirin use (defined as consistent use while on adjuvant therapy and 6 months after the completion of adjuvant therapy) had a statistically significant 54% improvement in disease-free survival compared to non-regular users.64 A similar impact was seen in patients who were on COX-2 inhibitors (celecoxib or rofecoxib).  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150459/

Helpful with some cancers: http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JCO.2016.70.7547

no effect: http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/content/176884-195 no statistically significant effect of aspirin on CRC relapse

Helps: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848289/

Gov’t recommends for 50-59yo, low dose aspirin: https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/UpdateSummaryFinal/aspirin-to-prevent-cardiovascular-disease-and-cancer
The USPSTF recommends initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) in adults aged 50 to 59 years who have a 10% or greater 10-year CVD risk, are not at increased risk for bleeding, have a life expectancy of at least 10 years, and are willing to take low-dose aspirin daily for at least 10 years.

Interview (helps, but not prescribed): http://www.cancernetwork.com/colorectal-cancer/role-aspirin-colorectal-cancer-prevention-and-treatment

25% ish, probably use for all forms, but effective only in some: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4838306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4260025/
http://journal.waocp.org/article_32464_4ac9cde95f304cfecae73ecaa971ad67.pdf

Helps: but at 5-10 years: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354696/
Good summary article: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/research/aspirin-cancer-risk

Low dose aspirin 31% improvement (2017):In this cohort aspirin use was associated with a 31% improvement in cancer-specific survival compared to non-use (adjusted HR=0.69, 95% CI 0.47–0.98). This effect was more pronounced in tumors with high PTGS2 expression (PTGS2-high adjusted HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.32–0.96) compared to those with low PTGS2 expression (PTGS2-low adjusted HR=1.19, 95% CI 0.68–2.07, P for interaction=0.09). The aspirin by PTGS2 interaction was significant for overall survival (PTGS2-high adjusted HR=0.64, 95% CI 0.42–0.98 vs. PTGS2-low adjusted HR=1.28, 95% CI 0.80–2.03, P for interaction=0.04). However, no interaction was observed between aspirin use and PIK3CA mutation status for colorectal cancer-specific or overall survival.

http://www.nature.com/ctg/journal/v8/n4/full/ctg201718a.html

Rat study, chemoprotective effect of aspirin plus curcumin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28267439

Aspirin more effective in men than in women: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27765797

“In the three studies, median (maximum) follow-up was 5.1 (12), 5.8 (12) and 7.5 (13) years, respectively. 3,033 incident CRC cases were identified in Study 1, 3,174 in Study 2, and 12,333 in Study 3. Current use of low-dose aspirin was associated with a significantly reduced risk of 34%, 29% and 31% in the three studies, respectively; corresponding RRs (95% CIs) were 0.66 (0.60-0.73), 0.71 (0.63-0.80) and 0.69 (0.64-0.74).” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27428004

After diagnosis, 9.4% reduction in all cause mortality and 12.5% reduction in CRC
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27247217

 

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

Thanks for digging those up and your general comments. So it can be statistically quite significant. I guess that doing all four things would increase your odds quite a bit and they all look worthwhile though I might go with the aspiring after chemo as I don't want thin blood issues.

I did not know that the types of CRC have been identified and categorized to a high degree. I had a look at one of the abstracts which mentioned CD274 - something that I've never heard of and it's determined by ImmunoHistoChemistry testing. I dd have IHC done to check for MSI but I don't recall anything similar to CD274. I also had genetic testing done and am waiting back for the results. The place that did it has Nextgen Sequencers so they can do parallel testing (multiple assays at one time). They might have the whole tumor genome as well though I don't know how I'd request analysis of specific genes short of getting it and trying to do it myself with a little help. It would be cool if they could just give me the genome and let me play around with it but I'd guess that it would take a very long time to get up to speed on doing analysis. I guess I will ask about it when I get the report back.

Did you have the option of gettng one or more of the indicated tests? I assume that your insurance didn't cover it or your oncologist wouldn't approve it.

I'll ask my son if he's heard of CD274 testing. If he's heard of it, then it's probably common.

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

I asked him and he wasn't aware of a specific assay for CD274 though it's possible that it goes by another name. He also said that it doesn't matter as NextGen Sequencing captures the whole thing so you (not sure what he meant by "you") can get everything in a report. It makes sequencing a lot cheaper as you had to run a test one by one with the old approaches. I'll ask the pathologist when he sends me my results if I can look at CD274 and any others related to aspirin.

SandiaBuddy's picture
SandiaBuddy
Posts: 1090
Joined: Apr 2017

Do you know the cost of the testing?  

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

My son quotes me $1,000.

Wikipedia lists $1,400 in 2015 so I guess $1,000 for today is reasonable. Sequencing costs have come down dramatically over the last ten years.

I would guess that there are those here who have had the genetic testing so they would see the bill (though it's easy to lose things in a sea of hospital bills). I've never seen the report but would love to know what they cover by default these days. I should look around on the internet.

PamRav's picture
PamRav
Posts: 280
Joined: Jan 2017

I was tested for BRAF ( negative) ,  KRAS ( was mutated) and  satellite  status (stable) NRAS ( inconclusive).   I don't recall a separate  billing for these tests. Bby then I have reached my deductible. So would have been paid in full if it was covered. Are these the tests you are discussing??   Or are they more intense than these.  

NHMike
Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2017

Was it ImmunoHistoChemistry testing or genetic? Mine was IHC and it's a lot cheaper then genetic testing. I did not receive a separate bill - they took four tubes of blood from me (I was rather shocked when she told me how much they were taking), and it was to do the DPD (enzyme test where you can die from 5 FU if you're the rare person), and other routine bloodwork. I didn't see a bill for the blood tests - only the results. They might have been rolled into a doctors visit or hospital bill.

The new NextGen Sequencing machines can sequence the whole tumor genome. That's way more information than is needed for diagnosis and treatment plannng though. I think that they do a difference between the tumor genome and the patient "normal" genome. I'm not really sure what they do with the results though but I think that processing is standard. I've gone though the code that does the diffing before (trying to speed it up) so I have a rough idea as to what it tries to do, but only from a code perspective. I don't really understand the genomic data at all.

The genetic testing is a lot more important for lung cancer where there are more targetted therapies. So if you have a specific type of cancer, then we'll give you this drug. I have a coworker that would be dead right now if he didn't get the genetic testing and the drug that allowed him to live. The researchers determined that that kind of cancer typically mutates to another form in about a year. So they came up with a drug for that mutation as well and he's taking that to survive until we develop a cure.

PamRav's picture
PamRav
Posts: 280
Joined: Jan 2017

i know the results I received knocks me out from getting the newer drugs as they do not work on my tumors.  Next time I see the doc I'm going to nail him down on exactly what testing was done and if there are other tests that will be of value. 

pattern my first onco visit they did take tubes and tubes of blood.   They post the results on a website that I access, but I inadvertently found out from one of nurses yesterday that not everything actually gets posted there...hmmm

Subscribe to Comments for "New study on meat intake and colorectal cancer"