Speculation about chemo-induced anemia (and possibly leukopenia as well)

[Margerie]

Debbie,

I ran across lots of anecdotal evidence in my search. Can't get access to the good articles. Talked to a couple of families in the mountain area where we bought our vacation home. Their stories were the same: member of family dx with cancer (one was a child), diagnosis grim, moved to mountains and all went into remission. I figure it could be more than the altitude: less pollution, tendency for less fast food/better diet, more opportunity for exercise, more vit D, etc.

It may be all in my head- but I definitely feel a difference in my cardio abilitites for a few days on my return from the mountains (after just a 4 day trip).

A smattering of altitude/cancer discussions: (Will look more when I get back- out the door today)

http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO...stractID=30083

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...stract/3/5/461

http://members.westnet.com.au/pkolb/peat3.htm

[TSund]

This is fascinating. Has there been a simple study of whether there is less cancer at high altitudes?


Terri

[dlaxague]

Hi Margerie and all,

Thanks for the links. This is my favorite kind of discussion where we are all thinking, thinking, and sharing ideas.

I looked around a bit with google, also. I didn't find much, and most of what I found was looking at increased cosmic or ionizing radiation at high altitude and an increase in cancer incidence. One study of mice showed an increase in cancer at altitude over time (1969). There does not seem to be much interest in this subject (judging by the lack of research). There was a lot of interest in studying airline personnel, again r/t mostly to radiation exposure at altitude but also to interrupted circadian rhythms and other lifestyle factors.

Your first two links were interesting but hardly conclusive. The last one was pretty out-there - this MD evidently has his own theories and a very pricey clinic where people learn his special technique for relieving asthma, but his theories are not supported by mainstream medicine (which is not to say he might not be onto something but if he is, he needs to show some evidence.).

So I'd say that while it is intriguing and could be true (or not), it would not be accurate at this point to say that it is "pretty well known" that there is less cancer at altitude. And I'm not sure it will ever be known, given the many confounders that would exist when comparing populations.

Debbie Laxague

[Margerie]

Debbie-

Thanks for calling me out! Yes- I would say that it is not right for me to say "it is pretty well-known..." I was thinking about the incidence breast cancer of women living at altitude (mountains of Japan, other rural areas, indigenous populations) are low, versus the women with a very high incidence (Marin, CA) which is at or below sea level. Of course, more than just altitude playing with these numbers.

Anyway, like I said before- love to speculate.

[dlaxague]

What a good sport you are, Margerie. When my post appeared and I read it on the board, I was worried that it seemed harsh and critical. Email can be like that, I've found - the same thing said in the right voice face-to-face would be fine but the words without inflection on the screen can take on a different slant. So thank you for setting my mind at rest that we're just having a friendly discussion and speculation here. I love speculation, too - it's good to exercise our minds.

Debbie

[AlaskaAngel]

This site manages to be a wonderful and polite place for diverse opinions and speculations to be shared and challenged. I've been going over and over to some of the comments, and am thankful for the feedback. I appreciate polite directness without sarcasm or domination.

AlaskaAngel

[Bev]

Good thread. If we're polite, dissent is good. It means we are really thinking about issues rather than rushing to agree. Even the science minds don't agree so we are onto something. I do think all this internet dialogue will eventually speed up cancer R & D. Just hoping it's soon. Bev