Study shows higher cancer risk among twins, siblings

Twins share the same genes, and when one gets cancer, the other faces a higher risk of getting sick too, according to a study today that included 200,000 people.
But just because one twin falls ill does not mean that the other is certain to get the same cancer, or any cancer at all, according the report in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
In fact, the amount of increased risk of cancer was just 14 per cent higher in identical pairs in which one twin was diagnosed with cancer.
Identical twins develop from the same egg and share the exact same genetic material.

Among fraternal twins, which develop from two eggs and are as genetically similar as typical biological siblings, the risk of cancer in a twin whose co-twin was infected was five percent higher.
The twins in the study hailed from Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway -- all countries that maintain detailed health registries -- and were followed between 1943 and 2010.

When researchers looked at the group as a whole, they found that about one in three individuals developed cancer (32 per cent).
Therefore, the risk of cancer in an identical twin whose twin was diagnosed was calculated to be 46 per cent.

In fraternal twins it amounted to a 37 per cent risk of developing cancer if a co-twin was diagnosed.
The exact same cancer was diagnosed in 38 per cent of identical twins and 26 percent of fraternal pairs.
The cancers that were most likely to be shared among twins were skin melanoma (58 per cent), prostate (57 per cent), non melanoma skin (43 per cent), ovary (39 per cent), kidney (38 per cent), breast (31 per cent), uterine cancer (27 per cent).
"Because of this study's size and long follow-up, we can now see key genetic effects for many cancers," said Jacob Hjelmborg, from the University of Southern Denmark and co-lead author of the study.

Q) Do you recommend Hindus to go in for circumcision?
A) They should be given a cafeteria choice. Tell me - what is religion? It is a way of life to make one happier and more comfortable, if there is something good in another religion why not adopt it?
I am not forcing anyone, but we should be given a choice. Genital hygiene is vitally important. Genital hygiene, circumcision, screening, leave all choices for people to decide what they want to do. And if someone opts for a circumcision, why stamp that person as Muslim? If HPV transmission, HIV transmission and cervical cancer are going to reduce, then why not promote circumcision?

The third most fatal cancer in urban India that is reducing rapidly is stomach cancer. Those who get it have a mere 5 per cent five-year survival. 95 per cent of people are dead in the first five years. This cancer is reducing at a breakneck speed in cities - because of proper preservation of food.
In rural India, food is kept overnight without refrigeration and preservation, and that can have fungi, which leads to stomach cancer. This has reduced to less than 6 per 100,000 in cities, and it was earlier 20 per 100,000. So Swachh Bharat is an excellent move.

The second important thing - there are some cancers that are rising; breast cancer, ovarian cancer, lower end of food pipe cancer - all these cancers in additional to intestinal cancer and kidney cancer, six cancers are attributed to obesity, which is entirely in urban India.
In rural India, there is no obesity - people work hard. Obesity produces 6 different kinds of cancer, and almost all are preventable; almost half the breast cancer cases are because of obesity. Immensely preventable through daily exercise and less food.
I do not think today in urban India and cities, there is an entity called hunger - it does not exist. There is so much of food around, yet every mother feels their child does not eat. How does the child become obese then? No exercise.

See, cancer in India is one third to one sixth of that in the US. In America, it is 300 per 100,000. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has put in more than a million USD in Barshi to understand why breast cancer is static at 8 per 100,000 for the last 30 years.
It is around 120 per 100,000 in USA. In the case of large intestine cancer, which is 60-70 per 100,000 in the US.; it is 4 per 100,000 in India. Our diet is excellent, our roughage is fantastic, and our spices are beautiful - all these need to be continued.

Another preventable thing is tobacco - it accounts for 40
per cent of cancers in India. It is the only product which does not require insecticides - insects know that it is bad! The tobacco industry pays the farmer 3 years in advance - we need to do something so that by 2025, there is no tobacco production. Give farmers subsidies, alternative crops, see that there is incentive to stop tobacco production.
Q) On tobacco use do you think the people are addicted, or is the government addicted to tobacco through tax collection?
A) People are addicted, no question about this - it is an addictive agent. The government should have a little bit of a courageous attitude and put (heavy) taxation so that the revenue from that taxation doubles.

You triple the taxation, your revenue will double and your usage will become half. Continue doing it and while you are doing it, give an alternative crop to the farmer so that his livelihood is not affected.
Q) So you do not think the government is addicted?
A) No, I would not say that. They are doing something about it. It is vitally important to understand in India there is an industry that is residing in houses; cottage industry that makes beedis - that is huge money.
And tobacco that is chewed, we have already banned. And this ban on Gutka is effective. The incidence of oral cancer in Mumbai has started declining since last year. There is legislation on reducing consumption of tobacco we need implementation of that law. We just cannot have the sale of tobacco.