# Understanding cancer at the Breed Level



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

http://www.tualatinkc.org/pdf/Understanding Cancer at the Breed Level.pdf


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

I wonder if they can do a family tree sort of thing. 

Get people who know the lines to report the data and do a big mapping of the trees. 

I know you can see genetic issues in families easier this way. Mark the names by color or note numbers for cancers, hip issues, etc. And maybe visually you see a link.

Like are cancers more common in dogs who were breed with young moms and older dads showing issues over slightly older moms and younger dads. etc. (just making up an example) or the more litters a mom has the later litters have more health issues?

interesting read.


----------



## BearValley (Nov 30, 2008)

Very interesting, would love to hear more (it looked like maybe that was a handout that went with a more involved talk or lecture?).

There were a lot of things that just seemed to make perfect sense right off the bat, while a few were very counter intuitive and therefore more interesting.

Thanks fer posting it! :wavey:

.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

I'm multitasking : Here is more:


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

It looks like this goes along with this

http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/CCAH/documents/newsletter_2008_fall.pdf


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Thank you both for these. My dear friends who just lost their boy last night I know have tons of questions. I will print and pass both articles along to them. I know it will help them deal with their loss.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

I always wondered after reading these articles about how cancer is sometimes inheritable and sometimes not what a breeder does when one of their bitches/dogs dies of cancer and they have younger prospects from that dog/bitch through their current lines. Do they cut the line off completely or do they think it is a fluke?


----------



## rappwizard (May 27, 2009)

So much good information--keeping dogs lean and fit, for starters. And how dogs with compromised immune systems, such as those with allergies and skin conditions could possibly be at a somewhat increased risk.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

GoldenSail said:


> I always wondered after reading these articles about how cancer is sometimes inheritable and sometimes not what a breeder does when one of their bitches/dogs dies of cancer and they have younger prospects from that dog/bitch through their current lines. Do they cut the line off completely or do they think it is a fluke?


The issue is that the genetic factors are so complex that one line of dogs doesn't offer statistically significant information. So one or two incidences of cancer don't necessarily mean that the line is actually more prone than any other. Also, different cancers may have completely different causes, so one dog with osteo, one with hemangio, and one with lympho may have completely unrelated factors.

I think if breeders see one particular kind of cancer cropping up a lot in one line, it makes sense for them to avoid those matches and to treat it like any other problem in a line, but a handful, particularly if it's a mixed bag of cancers, doesn't tell you much about how prone the line really is.


----------



## Sucker For Gold (Jan 13, 2009)

Here is the complete article that goes along with the outline that PG posted.

http://www.americanwaterspanielclub.org/pdf/Health and Genetics/Understanding_Cancer_at_the_Bree.pdf


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

IMO, Rhonda is a phenominal person who has made huge donations to the golden breed, both monetarily and intellectually. I am hoping to show the Tito Monster to her in Louisville in March, not because I think he will win but because I will consider it a huge honor to see and hopefully meet her.
Does anyone know anything about her current research into anti-inflammatories and cancer? A non-reliable source told me she is giving each of her young dogs a baby aspirin daily to prevent inflammation.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> IMO, Rhonda is a phenominal person who has made huge donations to the golden breed, both monetarily and intellectually. I am hoping to show the Tito Monster to her in Louisville in March, not because I think he will win but because I will consider it a huge honor to see and hopefully meet her.
> Does anyone know anything about her current research into anti-inflammatories and cancer? A non-reliable source told me she is giving each of her young dogs a baby aspirin daily to prevent inflammation.


I've heard that some people are starting to do that, but I don't know about Hovan in particular. There are definitely correlations between long-term inflammatory processes and many types of cancer, which is probably one of the reasons that obesity and chronic infections have strong correlations to increased rates of cancer.

Still, the work is _very_ early in development, but I'm watching with great interest.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

I wrote and asked her about the baby asprin last year, and she emailed back right away and said buffered asprin like ascriptin show lots of cancer prevention promise in research, but that there are stomach risks too to consider.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I asked my vet about it and he went into a long unintelligible (to me) explanation that anti-inflammatories over time can cause inflammation, I have NO clue what he was explaining to me, but he also thought the research was of interest.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> I asked my vet about it and he went into a long unintelligible (to me) explanation that anti-inflammatories over time can cause inflammation, I have NO clue what he was explaining to me, but he also thought the research was of interest.


I believe there's some evidence that NSAIDs actually modify the body's inflammatory response over time if they're used long term, so even if cancer risk is increased by inflammation, the long-term use of an anti-inflammatory drug may not actually reduce the risk overall, and may have other unintended consequences.

You have to be _really_ careful not to get ahead of the research, or you can end up doing more harm than good.


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Thanks for the info. I hadn't thought about kerosene heater fumes...we run one in our garage most weekends in the winter, and Ike does stay out there to be near it's heat. That will stop immediately.

As for anti-inflammatories, I've been giving Ike Kelp and fish oil supplements for this purpose, as I was worried he was too young to be given aspirin regularly and have read that they offer this benefit as well as others.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Noey said:


> I wonder if they can do a family tree sort of thing.
> 
> Get people who know the lines to report the data and do a big mapping of the trees.
> 
> ...


There are some long term studies doing basically this as are some breeders I know with their own lones. I know I have shared this before but think again it is appropiate here. When I lost my Kizmet, of my breeding, almost 3 years ago I was very concerned for her littermates and possible future generations. This is the response I got grom Dr. Modiano who was still in Colorado at the time. there just is no simple answers when it comes to cancer.

"As far as the genetics, we don't know the precise answer, but probably 
not. Risk is what it is, and whether it manifests young or old is a 
matter of how the inherent risk factors that exist interact with each 
other and the environment, so there is a bit of randomness to it all.
Some very specific types of cancer in people, and one type of cancer in 
dogs are known to be "heritable" in the sense that the risk is 
associated with mutation of a single gene (and the gene is different 
for each cancer syndrome recognized).
For tumors like leukemia, which also occur very frequently in kids, the 
heritable risk is complex and not necessarily such that it will show up 
in every individual. So we do not consider that a heritable or 
"genetic" disease in the conventional sense.
In other words, the fact that Kizmet got this disease so young is an 
unfortunate accident (and please, do not infer that as meaning that we 
are any less sorry or upset about the news), but her risk was probably 
not significantly different than the risk of any other golden.
Does that make sense? Please do let me know if you find this confusing 
and want more clarification."


----------



## NuttinButGoldens (Jan 10, 2009)

I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

"In addition, several recent studies have suggested a possibly
improved overall cancer risk profile for dogs of both sexes that have been permitted to mature with their natural
hormones. Some of this data is considered preliminary, and the associations may or may not be supported by future
studies. But there is some data that suggests that the risk of osteosarcoma decreases with every year that the spay
or neuter is delayed. Another study, of over 1200 cardiac hemangiosarcomas, indicated between a 2.4 times and 5
times increased risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact dogs (males and females).
Since hemangiosarcoma is the most common cancer in the breed, this data might influence some owners to consider
at least delaying neutering beyond early puppyhood. In addition, the risk of prostate cancer is also higher in
neutered dogs than in intact dogs. However, this is not a common cancer, and it should be noted that the risk of
benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, or enlarged prostate) is increased in intact males. But while BPH is about four
times more common than prostate cancer in dogs, neutering after diagnosis is usually curative."


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

Great, great article! I am going out to buy some fresh broc or cabbage today. Do you think it can be frozen stuff? I also found the info about age of death and height very interesting. I wonder if that might have something to do with early spay/neuter, since early spay/neuter is associated with taller dogs too. Maybe if my Dexy was a few inches shorter, he could have lived to be 14.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Selli-Belle said:


> Great, great article! I am going out to buy some fresh broc or cabbage today. Do you think it can be frozen stuff? I also found the info about age of death and height very interesting. I wonder if that might have something to do with early spay/neuter, since early spay/neuter is associated with taller dogs too. Maybe if my Dexy was a few inches shorter, he could have lived to be 14.


Frozen is good, because it is flash frozen at it's peak and maintains the beneficial nutrients. Even fresh, once picked, is only good for about a week. And there is no telling how long it has been since fresh produce at the market was picked. And for the same reason, frozen is better than canned.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Thanks Brian, I think that's exactly in keeping with what my vet was explaining to me only he used the biological explanations of how and why and I was lost :doh:



tippykayak said:


> I believe there's some evidence that NSAIDs actually modify the body's inflammatory response over time if they're used long term, so even if cancer risk is increased by inflammation, the long-term use of an anti-inflammatory drug may not actually reduce the risk overall, and may have other unintended consequences.
> 
> You have to be _really_ careful not to get ahead of the research, or you can end up doing more harm than good.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Selli-Belle said:


> Great, great article! I am going out to buy some fresh broc or cabbage today. Do you think it can be frozen stuff? I also found the info about age of death and height very interesting. I wonder if that might have something to do with early spay/neuter, since early spay/neuter is associated with taller dogs too. Maybe if my Dexy was a few inches shorter, he could have lived to be 14.


I highly doubt that the height differences related to neutering could account for this. Across all breeds, there's a general rule that larger dogs don't live as long, and faster-growing dogs are more prone to osteosarcoma. Neutering on the early side apparently doesn't cause huge differences in long bone size, just tiny ones.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

another question...since dogs are missing the enzyme required to digest raw veggies unless they are pureed (or cooked), what's the point of feeding them?


----------



## GoldenJoyx'stwo (Feb 25, 2007)

You may know the answer to this Brian. A long time ago I read something online that stated "an animals daily intake of broccoli should not exceed more than 10% of the animals diet. " Broccoli contains a toxic substance called isothiocyanate, which can cause gastrointestinal irritation. Do you know this to be true? 

I hope I'm not taking this off topic, but I see Broccoli has been mentioned and I always wondered if the above is true.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kimm said:


> You may know the answer to this Brian. A long time ago I read something online that stated "an animals daily intake of broccoli should not exceed more than 10% of the animals diet. " Broccoli contains a toxic substance called isothiocyanate, which can cause gastrointestinal irritation. Do you know this to be true?
> 
> I hope I'm not taking this off topic, but I see Broccoli has been mentioned and I always wondered if the above is true.


I board a Boxer who is fed raw, and broccoli is part of her pm meal, but a relatively small portion of the pack. Nancy based her mixture on the same info as above.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> another question...since dogs are missing the enzyme required to digest raw veggies unless they are pureed (or cooked), what's the point of feeding them?



The thinking is that canines in the wild will devour the entire kill, including the stomach and it's contents. In that form the veggies would have either been processed with the prey's enzymes or the cell walls would have been broken down by the prey's chewing - think of a cow and it's cud as an example.


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

I thought they couldn't break down the cellulose. Pureeing them does this for them and then they can be digested.


----------



## Selli-Belle (Jan 28, 2009)

I guess that means pureed fresh veggies. I made a mixture of pureed broc. soy protein powder, and plain yogurt. Selli liked it, Duffy snubbed it. I think I will add some salmon oil and chicken and maybe Duffy will eat it.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Hank and Betty, that's my point exactly. Why would feeding them raw veggies be beneficial to help prevent cancer, when they can't digest them???


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> Hank and Betty, that's my point exactly. Why would feeding them raw veggies be beneficial to help prevent cancer, when they can't digest them???



When I feed raw veggies they are run thru a juicer and that breaks down the cell walls and they do digest them.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Kimm said:


> You may know the answer to this Brian. A long time ago I read something online that stated "an animals daily intake of broccoli should not exceed more than 10% of the animals diet. " Broccoli contains a toxic substance called isothiocyanate, which can cause gastrointestinal irritation. Do you know this to be true?
> 
> I hope I'm not taking this off topic, but I see Broccoli has been mentioned and I always wondered if the above is true.


I've never heard that, and I can't find any direct evidence to suggest that it's true. All the claims on the internet I could find appear to be copied from each other, and they're based on some claim about dairy cows that, even if it's true, may not apply to dogs.

I wouldn't feed a dog more than 10% of his diet from a single vegetable anyway, but I can't imagine that moderate amount of broccoli would be harmful.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> another question...since dogs are missing the enzyme required to digest raw veggies unless they are pureed (or cooked), what's the point of feeding them?


I hear that claim all the time, but I don't understand the science behind it. What enzyme or collection of enzymes might this be?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

here's another rhonda hovan article, hopefully I can attach this correctly. It addresses things we can do to help minimize the cancer risk in our dogs.
She mentions adding broccoli and cabbage to the diet, which is why I asked the question about why add something they can't digest???


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

the enzymes are called cellulase and pectinase.

"...The major component in the rigid cell walls in plants is cellulose. Cellulose is a linear polysaccharide polymer with many glucose monosaccharide units. The acetal linkage is *beta* which makes it different from starch. This peculiar difference in acetal linkages results in a major difference in digestibility in humans. Humans are unable to digest cellulose because the appropriate enzymes to breakdown the beta acetal linkages are lacking. (More on enzyme digestion in a later chapter.) Undigestible cellulose is the fiber which aids in the smooth working of the intestinal tract.
Animals such as cows, horses, sheep, goats, and termites have symbiotic bacteria in the intestinal tract. These symbiotic bacteria possess the necessary enzymes to digest cellulose in the GI tract. They have the required enzymes for the breakdown or hydrolysis of the cellulose; the animals do not, not even termites, have the correct enzymes. No vertebrate can digest cellulose directly...." http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/547cellulose.html




tippykayak said:


> I hear that claim all the time, but I don't understand the science behind it. What enzyme or collection of enzymes might this be?


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> I hear that claim all the time, but I don't understand the science behind it. What enzyme or collection of enzymes might this be?



Not sure it is an enzyme issue. 
Ruminants (cows, deer, sheep, goats) process their diet (vegetation) two times. The first time they chew it to moisten it. They then send it to the one section of the stomach where it is softened by enzymes/chemicals. The stomach then returns the matter (cud) to the mouth where the animal chews it more and swallows again sending it to another stomach section. There the moisture is squeezed out of the cud and it is then sent to a third section of the stomach where it again mixes with more enzymes/chemicals and is then sent on it's way tot he intestine to be completely digested. 
And in nature that is how dogs would get the nutrients from the veggies. They would get little from going to the arm and grazing on the farmer's crops. It is so cool when you look how things were meant to work in nature and how distorted we make them in "civilization". 

Something else to think about. One of the biggest proponents of raw diets, Billinghurst, believs that a dog can not survive in a healthy manner on an ALL meat diet but can do well on a well constructed ALL vegetarian diet.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Well, if all that's true, then humans and dogs are in the same boat, and broccoli is great for us, even though we can't break down cellulose well enough to subsist on things like grass. Lots of fruits and vegetables have easily accessible nutrients in them, and the undigestible cellulose is dietary fiber, which is good in moderation too.

That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what enzymes or other processes that humans have and dogs lack that make broccoli good for us and somehow bad (or useless) for them. Vegetable digestion is so much more complicated than a handful of enzymatic reactions.

Plus, dogs have bacteria in the gut, just like we do. Some sections are shorter, but proportionally, they're not much shorter. Dogs really have spent the last ten thousand years evolving to eat what humans throw out. Dogs can even get nutrients out of feces, for the love of pete.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

okay, this will fall into the TMI realm....
when you feed dogs raw veggies, unless they're pureed or cut real small, they come out exactly how they went in.
Not so with humans.
Except maybe corn 

But I do see your point. They must be able to get some nutrients out of the veggies, as we do. 





tippykayak said:


> Well, if all that's true, then humans and dogs are in the same boat, and broccoli is great for us, even though we can't break down cellulose well enough to subsist on things like grass. Lots of fruits and vegetables have easily accessible nutrients in them, and the undigestible cellulose is dietary fiber, which is good in moderation too.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what enzymes or other processes that humans have and dogs lack that make broccoli good for us and somehow bad (or useless) for them. Vegetable digestion is so much more complicated than a handful of enzymatic reactions.
> 
> Plus, dogs have bacteria in the gut, just like we do. Some sections are shorter, but proportionally, they're not much shorter. Dogs really have spent the last ten thousand years evolving to eat what humans throw out. Dogs can even get nutrients out of feces, for the love of pete.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

hotel4dogs said:


> okay, this will fall into the TMI realm....
> when you feed dogs raw veggies, unless they're pureed or cut real small, they come out exactly how they went in.
> Not so with humans.
> Except maybe corn
> ...


LOL - I don't do it, so I haven't seen that. The dogs have eaten some carrot before, and I don't recall seeing it again, but my experience with feeding dogs raw vegetables ends there.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> Not sure it is an enzyme issue.
> Ruminants (cows, deer, sheep, goats) process their diet (vegetation) two times. The first time they chew it to moisten it. They then send it to the one section of the stomach where it is softened by enzymes/chemicals. The stomach then returns the matter (cud) to the mouth where the animal chews it more and swallows again sending it to another stomach section. There the moisture is squeezed out of the cud and it is then sent to a third section of the stomach where it again mixes with more enzymes/chemicals and is then sent on it's way tot he intestine to be completely digested.
> And in nature that is how dogs would get the nutrients from the veggies. They would get little from going to the arm and grazing on the farmer's crops. It is so cool when you look how things were meant to work in nature and how distorted we make them in "civilization".
> 
> Something else to think about. One of the biggest proponents of raw diets, Billinghurst, believs that a dog can not survive in a healthy manner on an ALL meat diet but can do well on a well constructed ALL vegetarian diet.


I have always had a difficult time reconciling this. I know some Dalmatians that are on veggie diets because the owners want to prevent the protein/kidney issues common in the breed, and they "do well", but they are not what I would call vigorous, thriving, shiny dogs. And mind you, they are being fed this diet ("well constructed") prophylactically, _not _because they were already ill.
Dogs are carnivores, and other than rare exceptions, I believe need meat.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> I have always had a difficult time reconciling this. I know some Dalmatians that are on veggie diets because the owners want to prevent the protein/kidney issues common in the breed, and they "do well", but they are not what I would call vigorous, thriving, shiny dogs. And mind you, they are being fed this diet ("well constructed") prophylactically, _not _because they were already ill.
> Dogs are carnivores, and other than rare exceptions, I believe need meat.


I agree with you. Their ancestors were full carnivores, and even though dogs have had a lot of evolutionary pressure to eat human leftovers, they haven't had all that long (biologically speaking) to adapt. It seems implausible to me that any dog (Dalmations' particular issues aside) would be better off on a vegetarian diet than on one which has a substantial proportion of its calories coming from meat.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> I have always had a difficult time reconciling this. I know some Dalmatians that are on veggie diets because the owners want to prevent the protein/kidney issues common in the breed, and they "do well", but they are not what I would call vigorous, thriving, shiny dogs. And mind you, they are being fed this diet ("well constructed") prophylactically, _not _because they were already ill.
> Dogs are carnivores, and other than rare exceptions, I believe need meat.


The way I take Billinghurst's statement is first he is speaking of domestic animals. And he acknowledges that you will not see a canine in nature grazing in the cabbage patch. He implies that an all meat diet fed to a domestic dog does not contain all the nutrients for a thriving health. But you could, with the right knowledge, feed a vagetarian diet that would supply everything needed to thrive. And just because someone is feeding their dog a vegetarian diet does not mean it is "well constructed". Just as I am afraid a lot of folks would feed a raw diet are necessarily feeding their dogs a proper diet. That 
While in the wild they are carnivores, there is that part of the prey that is not meat - the contents of the stomach. This is where in the wild canines get these nutrients needed to thrive. This is why his feeding philosophy includes both meat and veggies.


----------



## AmbikaGR (Dec 31, 2007)

tippykayak said:


> It seems implausible to me that any dog (Dalmations' particular issues aside) would be better off on a vegetarian diet than on one which has a substantial proportion of its calories coming from meat.



And that is not what Biillinghurst says. His statement was in regard to an ALL meat diet vs. an ALL vegetable diet. He feels the optimum diet is the one that they eat in the wild. A meat based diet with veggies included via the prey's stomach/intestines.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

AmbikaGR said:


> The way I take Billinghurst's statement is first he is speaking of domestic animals. And he acknowledges that you will not see a canine in nature grazing in the cabbage patch. He implies that an all meat diet fed to a domestic dog does not contain all the nutrients for a thriving health. But you could, with the right knowledge, feed a vagetarian diet that would supply everything needed to thrive. And just because someone is feeding their dog a vegetarian diet does not mean it is "well constructed". Just as I am afraid a lot of folks would feed a raw diet are necessarily feeding their dogs a proper diet. That
> While in the wild they are carnivores, there is that part of the prey that is not meat - the contents of the stomach. This is where in the wild canines get these nutrients needed to thrive. This is why his feeding philosophy includes both meat and veggies.


 
I agree that it is ll about balance, no question. I agree that a _purely _all meat diet will not contain all the nutrients needed to thrive. I do, though, still question the idea that an all vegetarian diet can supply everything a canine needs to _thrive_. _Survive_, maybe, but not thrive.


----------

