A cancer query

[petra10]

In the case of cervical cancer, after a smear test ,the doctors can detect what they call pre-cancerious cells or cells that can maybe turn into cancer.
Lasers are then used to kill off these cells.

I am not sure if these cells left alone maybe destroyed by the immune system. I know a this type of treatment is common, so are doctors just making sure that the cells are destroyed.

 

[blutoski]

Thanks - lots of study to be done then eh?

So is it right to say that cancer cells are a normal part of the body, and that cancer as a disease only occurs when these cells get out of control?

I'd say cancer cells are 'common,' but I hesitate at 'normal'. Some people have a different risk than others, and this increased risk could very well be regarded as abnormal in its own right.

Be mindful that there is also such a thing as a benign tumour. eg: warts are cells that multiply more than they need to, but aren't considered cancer. They can become cancerous, though.

One point I would add to Complexity's list is that many cancers are triggered by microbial infections. Again, warts. Some kinds of cervical cancer. There are others.

Or do we just not know enough about it yet?

I wish we knew much more about it.

 

[fuelair]

Thanks for clarifying - perhaps I should have used a smiley myself but I was getting frustrated with searching and either getting buried in academic terminology or alternative nonsense.

The paper taught me a lot, but I couldn't quite relate the bit on stem cells to what I was looking for. My poor biology knowledge is letting me down, so I couldn't see the relationship between the stem cells they base their assumptions/calculations on and, say, skin cells which presumably divide much more than 100 times in a lifetime and thus have a far higher mutation rate.

Also, I couldn't tell if the "6 to 10 events (mutations)" correlated with cancer rates in the general population - which would answer the question as to the number of background "potential" cancerous mutations versus the number that actually develop into cancer.

No. The problem is without a much larger study - or group of studies - you cannot really expand your assumptions that much - so they don't. What this is implying (by their statements generally not by a specific statement) is that basically there is no correlation like that so far. Their research has simply given approximate average numbers for mutations that could potentially lead to a cancer and they have done a simple correlation to one study on age v. cancer rate (time available v. number of potential mutations that might lead to cancer.)

And, again, you would need many more - and more directed- studies to begin to apply that to specific mutation causes, specific mutation rates in types of tissue (and environment of those tissues) and how these relate to time and numbers of tumors.(ETC.)

 

[fuelair]

Skin cell span is app. 14 days (your skin is replaced every 14 days on average) so, yes skin multiplies more often. That is not necessarily bad though - re:cancer the cancer has to start and spread mighty fast if the cells die that quickly- unless the cancers start in the area the cells initially form/duplicate in. (Again, not my field at that level).

A source re:skin: http://www.answers.com/topic/skin-6?cat=health

 

[EHLO]

Thanks all for the comments and info - it's very interesting stuff.