Geomedicine Shows Patterns in U.S. Breast and Prostate Cancer

The emerging field of geomedicine can't get moving fast enough for many of us who fear the threat of cancer -- particularly of the breast or prostate. In a recently published study that used the geographic microscope, as I like to refer to the geographic analysis of disease, it was found that the incidence of these two cancers is not a random event. While the authors state that they don't know exactly the underlying factors that cause these "hot spots" -- the areas seen in red on the maps -- it does reveal the wide geographic variability in where people with these types of cancer live. The maps are compelling because they reveal distinct geographic patterns.

.

The authors suggest, and you can see for yourself, that both breast cancer (map above) and prostate cancer (map below) cluster geographically, with a strong north-south distribution. You can learn more about this study here.

If I lived for more than a couple of years in any one of the red "hot spots," I would probably be more proactive in seeking more frequent screenings for prostate or breast cancer -- wouldn't you?

More alarming to me, however, was the finding that in counties with a high incidence of breast cancer, there was also a high incidence of prostate cancer. The authors suggest that this could be happening because these two cancers might share similar or common risk factors (i.e. environmental).

.

These geographical areas might be places where prostate and breast cancer screening advocates could clearly collaborate. Perhaps health care providers could receive more favorable reimbursement from our health insurance programs to increase the frequency of our cancer screenings?

I believe that as the practice of public health and the science of medicine guide the direction of geomedicine, the geographic "microscope" will become an integral part of medical practice. We will begin to see our doctors receive greater value out of all the data that we, as patients, are prepared to give to them -- such as our individual geographic place histories as well as our genetic and lifestyle profiles. (You can check out how a personal place history might work by downloading a free app called My Place History available in the Apple app store for both iPhones and iPads.)

Think of geomedicine as your personal health surveillance system -- always turned on and always vigilant about sensing changes in your environments (communities, neighborhoods, households and worksites, both past and present) that might impact your health. Geomedicine has the capacity to become that platform -- a new medical informatics specialty devoted to bringing all the data together intelligently to actually do something to help you and your doctor keep you healthy. Only though informed informational partnerships with our personal physicians and our public health professionals will we be better served by what is revealed through the modern geographic microscope!

As always, I invite a second opinion!

 

Follow Bill Davenhall on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BillDavenhall

Comments

[J David Auner]

09:16 AM on 02/13/2011

We need to pay more attention to this kind of data but with appropriate caution. The diabetes/obesity maps since 1990 reflect some of the same clusters (diet/lifestyle). Early diagnoses of breast cancers with uncertain lethality and non-lethal prostate cancers muddy the waters considerably so we must not bet the bank on the first map shown. Poor access to medical care may decrease the diagnoses of prostate cancer while increasing the death rate. Keep looking.

[wbg]

12:36 PM on 02/12/2011

This is a very old story that the authors of the cited paper failed to realized. The first paper in this series was by Cedric and Frank Garland on colon cancer in 1980. They hypothesized that solar ultraviolet-B light, through production of vitamin D, reduced the risk of cancer. They added breast cancer in 1990. Additional vitamin D-sensitive cancers were added by me and others to where there are about 20 now. Prostate cancer is somewhat different. The variation corresponds better to the map of greatest ancestry by county in the U.S. I've proposed that ApoE4, the Alzheimer's gene, explains much of the effect, with diet also playing a role. For those who want to reduce their risk of cancer, take 1000-4000 IU/d of vitamin D3 and try to reach serum 25(OH)D levels of 40-60 ng/ml. For more information, go to www.pubmed.gov and search vitamin D cancer. Also visit www.GrassrootsHealth.net, www.VitaminDCouncil.org, and www.sunarc.org. Oh, and don't be afraid of the sun, but don't burn.
William B. Grant, Ph.D., SUNARC

[Negin Anvar]

03:09 AM on 02/11/2011

Agreeing with everyone here so far - BPA, dairy (particularly cow's milk), lack of D3, too much red meat, corn, etc.
And yes, I have read time and time again that there is a very close relationship between breast and prostate cancers. Oftentimes, the treatment for one works for the other.
In "The Anti-Cancer Book" (which I absolutely love), he writes that we all carry cancer cells in us.
"In the West, 1 out of 3 will develop cancer. But remember that 2 out of 3 will not.
We can all create an anticancer biology for ourselves through the choices we make in our lives
Genes account for at most 15% of cancers, almost all the rest is due to diet and lifestyle factors.
Knowing that genetics are only a minor contribution to cancer helps us realize how much is in our power to help our body be a stronger partner in nourishing life and resisting cancer.
Believing that cancer is attributed to genes is a fatalistic idea but believing that cancer can be controlled by nutrition is a far more hopeful idea." I love that last sentence. There's always hope in action.

[crom14]

09:26 AM on 02/09/2011

That map is chilling. Have you looked at the studies on Prostate cancer and BPA in cans? The studies have linked usage of just two cans a day (such as a can of pop and a can of soup) as risk for prostate cancer.

[ragrant]

08:38 AM on 02/09/2011

Having lived in the southwestern part of Minnesota, my bet for the higher incidence of these cancers would be a combination of diet, heavy on animal proteins and fats, and agricultural chemicals. This is an area of mostly corn and bean farms and some huge livestock factories especially hogs.

[Martin 27514]

04:06 AM on 02/09/2011

It is the same in Chinese provinces.

Professor Jane Plant - a sufferer from advanced breast cancer, now in remission - found that provinces with a low incidence had no dairy products. www.janeplant.com

The high incidence in some areas, may be where people put milk on their cornflakes for breakfast and other "high dairy" habits.

[chouwalker]

01:19 AM on 02/08/2011

I don't understand the difference between "hot clusters" (red) and "cold clusters" (blue) as shown in the figures. Both the hot and cold clusters have the same incident rates in the figure keys (e.g. dark red is >150 incidents per 100,000 and dark blue is also >150 incidents per 100,000).

[RMankovitz]

12:03 AM on 02/08/2011

Fascinating data, ripe for speculation, so I will indulge. Cancer incidence is higher at the more Northern latitudes, raising the possibility that sunlight and vitamin D levels may play a role. Recent research is pointing to vitamin D deficiency as a contributing factor in the cancer puzzle.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization