Is lung cancer ever communicable?
November 28, 2010 4:42 PM Subscribe
Are there any known cases of someone catching lung cancer from a relative?
I know this is pretty unlikely, but I imagine cancer from one person could colonize another if the two are sufficiently related (maybe they'd have to be identical twins?) And cancer cells can be pretty loose... and people with lung cancer cough a lot... Are there any suspected cases of airborne transmission?
My Mum was just diagnosed with lung cancer (probable metastasis from breast cancer; probably terminal: biopsy was a few days ago), and the possibility occurred to me. I don't think it's worth worrying about as a realistic possibility, but I'm curious. (I feel strange about this macabre curiosity. Bonus question: is this normal? Hence the anonymous question...)
Metafilter's preview gave me this previous question, which confirms that tumors are communicable in some circumstances. I'm specifically asking about airborne transmission of lung cancer, in this case.
I know this is pretty unlikely, but I imagine cancer from one person could colonize another if the two are sufficiently related (maybe they'd have to be identical twins?) And cancer cells can be pretty loose... and people with lung cancer cough a lot... Are there any suspected cases of airborne transmission?
My Mum was just diagnosed with lung cancer (probable metastasis from breast cancer; probably terminal: biopsy was a few days ago), and the possibility occurred to me. I don't think it's worth worrying about as a realistic possibility, but I'm curious. (I feel strange about this macabre curiosity. Bonus question: is this normal? Hence the anonymous question...)
Metafilter's preview gave me this previous question, which confirms that tumors are communicable in some circumstances. I'm specifically asking about airborne transmission of lung cancer, in this case.
Some lung cancers may be related to viruses, but since your mom's is most likely a metastasis of another cancer, you're not going to catch hers.
Cancer cells don't themselves cause cancer, except in very unusual circumstances (someone once gave themselves a sarcoma by doing a careless biopsy of someone else's sarcoma, but it didn't metastasize).
When people refer to "contagious cancer" (as in feline leukemia) they generally mean "a contagious virus that triggers cancer development," except when they mean "a contagious parasitic mutated Schwann cell" (as in Tasmanian Devil facial tumors and Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumor).
Lung cancer is pretty well-researched; maybe reading more about how it happens will be reassuring about your own health, at least?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:11 PM on November 28, 2010
Cancer cells don't themselves cause cancer, except in very unusual circumstances (someone once gave themselves a sarcoma by doing a careless biopsy of someone else's sarcoma, but it didn't metastasize).
When people refer to "contagious cancer" (as in feline leukemia) they generally mean "a contagious virus that triggers cancer development," except when they mean "a contagious parasitic mutated Schwann cell" (as in Tasmanian Devil facial tumors and Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumor).
Lung cancer is pretty well-researched; maybe reading more about how it happens will be reassuring about your own health, at least?
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:11 PM on November 28, 2010
There are known cases of transmissible cancers (that's the googleable term) but only in Dogs, Tasmanian Devils, and Syrian Hamsters.
If it makes you feel any better, if you did somehow manage to get lung cancer from you mother and could prove it there would be nature papers, fame, and glory in your future. I know, also cancer
Really, even if it is possible, it would have to be devastatingly unlikely for it to have never been detected before. One would think oncology specialists would have a noticeably higher risk level for cancer.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:17 PM on November 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
If it makes you feel any better, if you did somehow manage to get lung cancer from you mother and could prove it there would be nature papers, fame, and glory in your future. I know, also cancer
Really, even if it is possible, it would have to be devastatingly unlikely for it to have never been detected before. One would think oncology specialists would have a noticeably higher risk level for cancer.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:17 PM on November 28, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm an oncologist. I'll be succinct: never described, and I'd consider it to be impossible.
posted by scblackman at 6:48 PM on November 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by scblackman at 6:48 PM on November 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
Bonus question: is this normal?
I've never known anyone to openly worry about whether a person's lung cancer can be coughed to another person like a communicable disease. That doesn't necessarily mean it's abnormal--people might worry but not want to tell people this is their concern.
posted by J. Wilson at 7:33 PM on November 28, 2010
I've never known anyone to openly worry about whether a person's lung cancer can be coughed to another person like a communicable disease. That doesn't necessarily mean it's abnormal--people might worry but not want to tell people this is their concern.
posted by J. Wilson at 7:33 PM on November 28, 2010
Even with "transmissible cancers" I don't understand that the cancer per se is being transmitted, just the virus that causes cancer.
I hear that asbestos miners would give their children and wives lung cancer, but that's a matter of exposure.
posted by wilful at 8:06 PM on November 28, 2010
I hear that asbestos miners would give their children and wives lung cancer, but that's a matter of exposure.
posted by wilful at 8:06 PM on November 28, 2010
I know this is pretty unlikely, but I imagine cancer from one person could colonize another if the two are sufficiently related (maybe they'd have to be identical twins?) And cancer cells can be pretty loose... and people with lung cancer cough a lot... Are there any suspected cases of airborne transmission?
My Mum was just diagnosed with lung cancer (probable metastasis from breast cancer; probably terminal: biopsy was a few days ago), and the possibility occurred to me.
Cancer isn't one disease, it's a group of diseases with a similar cause (i.e. unchecked reproduction of cells that would normally die a natural cell death.) Breast cancer that has metastasized (spread) to the lungs is not really the same disease as lung cancer.
Even in cases where cancer can be caused by a virus, "cancer" isn't a disease that can itself be transmitted. A virus that is communicable can be caught, and then some viruses, left unchecked, can cause cancer in an individual. The cancer itself isn't communicable.
Breast cancer is not associated with any viral cause. For that matter, lung cancer isn't either.
posted by desuetude at 8:50 PM on November 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
My Mum was just diagnosed with lung cancer (probable metastasis from breast cancer; probably terminal: biopsy was a few days ago), and the possibility occurred to me.
Cancer isn't one disease, it's a group of diseases with a similar cause (i.e. unchecked reproduction of cells that would normally die a natural cell death.) Breast cancer that has metastasized (spread) to the lungs is not really the same disease as lung cancer.
Even in cases where cancer can be caused by a virus, "cancer" isn't a disease that can itself be transmitted. A virus that is communicable can be caught, and then some viruses, left unchecked, can cause cancer in an individual. The cancer itself isn't communicable.
Breast cancer is not associated with any viral cause. For that matter, lung cancer isn't either.
posted by desuetude at 8:50 PM on November 28, 2010 [2 favorites]
What you are feeling is totally normal - many people wonder if they are developing cancer when a close relative gets it.
posted by zia at 10:03 PM on November 28, 2010
posted by zia at 10:03 PM on November 28, 2010
The cancer itself isn't communicable.
There actually are communicable cancers, but they're only found in dogs, Tasmanian Devils, and Syrian hamsters, as a couple of us have stated above. Lung cancer in humans is well understood not to be that kind of parasitic cancer, though, as you say.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:07 AM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
There actually are communicable cancers, but they're only found in dogs, Tasmanian Devils, and Syrian hamsters, as a couple of us have stated above. Lung cancer in humans is well understood not to be that kind of parasitic cancer, though, as you say.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:07 AM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm an oncologist. I'll be succinct: never described, and I'd consider it to be impossible.
Out of curiosity, not doubt in any way, are tumors routinely sequenced? I mean, the only way you'd know if this happened would be if you sequenced the cancer cells and found that they had cancerous versions of a family member's DNA instead of a cancerous version of the patient's.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:46 AM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
Out of curiosity, not doubt in any way, are tumors routinely sequenced? I mean, the only way you'd know if this happened would be if you sequenced the cancer cells and found that they had cancerous versions of a family member's DNA instead of a cancerous version of the patient's.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:46 AM on November 29, 2010 [1 favorite]
This article describes the transmission of cancer through a lung transplant. So in a sense, that cancer was contagious. Transplant recipients are given immunosuppressants because otherwise their immune system will recognize and attack foreign cells. In the absence of immunosuppression, it's reasonable to assume that this immune response would kill a cancerous invader pretty quickly. (I think a really interesting exception to this is choriocarcinoma, where the cancerous DNA is completely foreign-- it comes from a sperm donor.)
But if you had a transplant from an identical twin-- there wouldn't be any rejection. (Review of the literature suggests that this is possible even without an identical twin, but it becomes very unlikely.)
Now: could a cancerous cell set up shop someplace accidentally? Could a coughed up and re-inhaled bit of tumor colonize a twin's body?
I think that's pretty unlikely. Cancers need lots of food, which blood supplies, and one that received only second-hand nourishment (through the lung parenchyma) would have difficulty thriving. Plus, your lungs are covered in mucous which slowly works its way up and out of your lungs, so as to carry away bits of debris and pathogens. Your inhaled cancer would have a hard time latching on to anything, and even if it didn't die from a lack of food, it'd eventually be carried up into your mouth to be coughed out or swallowed (where it'd be killed and digested safely).
But what if you had a small tear someplace? If there was any active bleeding, blood pressure would carry the cancerous cell away from the tear. If bleeding had stopped, it would likely be because arterioles feeding the tear had clamped off, so your tumor would still have a problem with food.
One of the things that makes cancer dangerous is the ability of cancer to migrate. But this would work against any contagion, because any cancer that had the looseness to be coughed up wouldn't be capable of grabbing on to anything, so it would sort of be at the mercy of fluid flow and gravity.
So I'm thinking: if somebody coughed a cancerous cell into your body, and it didn't trigger an immune response because of foreign surface proteins, and it was coughed directly into a recent tear with enough force to penetrate the mucous of your respiratory tract and the blood pressure of the tear-- well, then, maybe it could travel through your bloodstream and set up shop someplace. It probably wouldn't end up as lung cancer, though. Maybe your liver. That's where metastasis always seem to show up.
When people start dealing with things that unlikely, they'll just talk about them as impossible. Consider that your risk of contracting AIDS from a cough is comparably likely.
Just my musings, based on an amateur knowledge of anatomy+(patho)physiology.
posted by nathan v at 2:05 PM on November 29, 2010
But if you had a transplant from an identical twin-- there wouldn't be any rejection. (Review of the literature suggests that this is possible even without an identical twin, but it becomes very unlikely.)
Now: could a cancerous cell set up shop someplace accidentally? Could a coughed up and re-inhaled bit of tumor colonize a twin's body?
I think that's pretty unlikely. Cancers need lots of food, which blood supplies, and one that received only second-hand nourishment (through the lung parenchyma) would have difficulty thriving. Plus, your lungs are covered in mucous which slowly works its way up and out of your lungs, so as to carry away bits of debris and pathogens. Your inhaled cancer would have a hard time latching on to anything, and even if it didn't die from a lack of food, it'd eventually be carried up into your mouth to be coughed out or swallowed (where it'd be killed and digested safely).
But what if you had a small tear someplace? If there was any active bleeding, blood pressure would carry the cancerous cell away from the tear. If bleeding had stopped, it would likely be because arterioles feeding the tear had clamped off, so your tumor would still have a problem with food.
One of the things that makes cancer dangerous is the ability of cancer to migrate. But this would work against any contagion, because any cancer that had the looseness to be coughed up wouldn't be capable of grabbing on to anything, so it would sort of be at the mercy of fluid flow and gravity.
So I'm thinking: if somebody coughed a cancerous cell into your body, and it didn't trigger an immune response because of foreign surface proteins, and it was coughed directly into a recent tear with enough force to penetrate the mucous of your respiratory tract and the blood pressure of the tear-- well, then, maybe it could travel through your bloodstream and set up shop someplace. It probably wouldn't end up as lung cancer, though. Maybe your liver. That's where metastasis always seem to show up.
When people start dealing with things that unlikely, they'll just talk about them as impossible. Consider that your risk of contracting AIDS from a cough is comparably likely.
Just my musings, based on an amateur knowledge of anatomy+(patho)physiology.
posted by nathan v at 2:05 PM on November 29, 2010
There are known cases of transmissible cancers (that's the googleable term) but only in Dogs, Tasmanian Devils, and Syrian Hamsters.
...
I'm an oncologist. I'll be succinct: never described, and I'd consider it to be impossible.
This is not 100% true, and the people suggesting that it is completely impossible and unheard of in humans are not correct. Having researched the subject (in tangential connection to some of my work in a biochemistry lab), there are a handful of incidents where cancer was transferred from person to person. In general, this seems to require a somewhat active insertion of the tumor into the second victim's body (via mother-to-fetus transmission, organ transplant, needlestick, or intentional surgical insertion (!) according to the case studies I have encountered) combined with compromised immune system or close relation to the originator of the cancer. So yes, close genetic relationship between the first and second patient is one risk factor, but it takes a lot more than that for the cancer to successfully grow in the second patient. And note that all of these are one-offs: unlike the canine or Tasmanian Devil transmissible cancers, this is not widespread, and even under these very specific conditions, I don't think I've ever heard of a case of cancer spreading beyond the second patient.
Here're a few pertinent links.
(Note that this is different from transmission of viruses that can lead to cancer, such as HPV; this is the transmission of cancer cells directly from one patient to the next, in such a way that the cells are able to grow and multiply in the second patient. )
However. You are probably more likely to be struck by lightning while single-handedly thwarting a terrorist attack than you are to catch cancer this way. While possible under some very specific conditions, this is extraordinarily rare, with only a handful of cases that show up in the literature. If this is something you are at all worrying about, you are not in any danger of catching lung cancer from your mother.
I doubt such research exists, because I think it would be extremely difficult to separate those causes from common genetic susceptibilities and common environmental conditions (e.g., second-hand smoke), at least among relatives.
Not really. The basic question is this: does the cancer cell genome match that of the first person, and that of their tumor? There are all kinds of bizarre chromosomal rearrangements and so on that happen in cancer, but it's not at all impossible to try to sequence the cells (fully or at selectied loci) and see whether the tumors are the same and whether they probably came from the first patient.
posted by ubersturm at 4:55 PM on November 30, 2010
...
I'm an oncologist. I'll be succinct: never described, and I'd consider it to be impossible.
This is not 100% true, and the people suggesting that it is completely impossible and unheard of in humans are not correct. Having researched the subject (in tangential connection to some of my work in a biochemistry lab), there are a handful of incidents where cancer was transferred from person to person. In general, this seems to require a somewhat active insertion of the tumor into the second victim's body (via mother-to-fetus transmission, organ transplant, needlestick, or intentional surgical insertion (!) according to the case studies I have encountered) combined with compromised immune system or close relation to the originator of the cancer. So yes, close genetic relationship between the first and second patient is one risk factor, but it takes a lot more than that for the cancer to successfully grow in the second patient. And note that all of these are one-offs: unlike the canine or Tasmanian Devil transmissible cancers, this is not widespread, and even under these very specific conditions, I don't think I've ever heard of a case of cancer spreading beyond the second patient.
Here're a few pertinent links.
(Note that this is different from transmission of viruses that can lead to cancer, such as HPV; this is the transmission of cancer cells directly from one patient to the next, in such a way that the cells are able to grow and multiply in the second patient. )
However. You are probably more likely to be struck by lightning while single-handedly thwarting a terrorist attack than you are to catch cancer this way. While possible under some very specific conditions, this is extraordinarily rare, with only a handful of cases that show up in the literature. If this is something you are at all worrying about, you are not in any danger of catching lung cancer from your mother.
I doubt such research exists, because I think it would be extremely difficult to separate those causes from common genetic susceptibilities and common environmental conditions (e.g., second-hand smoke), at least among relatives.
Not really. The basic question is this: does the cancer cell genome match that of the first person, and that of their tumor? There are all kinds of bizarre chromosomal rearrangements and so on that happen in cancer, but it's not at all impossible to try to sequence the cells (fully or at selectied loci) and see whether the tumors are the same and whether they probably came from the first patient.
posted by ubersturm at 4:55 PM on November 30, 2010
I wouldn't consider the active insertion of a tumor into someone else's body to fall within the commonly understood definition of "transmitted." Certainly not within the sort of airborne transmission cited in the question.
posted by desuetude at 6:31 PM on November 30, 2010
posted by desuetude at 6:31 PM on November 30, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by emilyd22222 at 4:45 PM on November 28, 2010