Cancer report

[bunnymom]

I’m in the US and a few days ago I saw a news report headline mentioning long term pred use and increase chance of cancer. I didn’t read it at the time and now can’t find it. Is anyone aware of what I’m talking about. This community has been so vital to my journey. Thank you.

[PMRpro Ambassador]

I think someone posted about it - and we did discuss it. It isn't something I'm worried about - without pred I wouldn't have had a life for the last 16 years so if I end up dying a bit earlier because of pred I have had a trade-off.

But I think it is difficult to generalise - as this points out

nature.com/articles/ncprheu...

there are rheumatological disorders that are associated with an increased risk of certain cancers anyway so if you are a bit more specific and take out confounders that risk is found to not apply for medium term use of pred,

There are studies which have unlinked pred use with particular cancers including breast and colon cancers. And other studies that found using steroids DURING cancer therapy were associated with problems,

However - I've looked back through a few hundred past posts for the last 3 months and the only thing I have found is a couple from USA members who had seen legal firms touting for business for class actions if you had developed cancer after longterm pred use?

healthunlocked.com/pmrgcauk...

healthunlocked.com/pmrgcauk....

Might you have seen something like that in passing?

[DorsetLady PMRGCAuk volunteer in reply to PMRpro]

Think the links you supplied are what was being referred to… can find anything else either.

[bunnymom in reply to PMRpro]

I believe that a law firms advertising might have been it now that I see all the links. I had no choice in meds either but the cancer idea has begun to weigh. If there was some thing pro actively I could do I was looking at that. Letting it go. Thanks all.

[bunnymom in reply to PMRpro]

Thank you for the help and peace.

[DorsetLady PMRGCAuk volunteer in reply to bunnymom]

The problem with life is that as you get older your body is less resilient so whether it be cancer or any other disease you may be more susceptible to suffering from it.

If you researched the subject, you would probably find that many different medications used long term and/or in high doses can be linked to cancer. But you have to weigh up the situation rationally- many diseases can be down to lifestyle, your genes, your environment- okay some things you can do something about, others you cannot - so no point in worrying about things you cannot change - and stressing about what cannot be changed can be a major factor in many illnesses.

As the saying goes - carpe diem..

[PMRpro Ambassador in reply to bunnymom]

Not at all. The idea that they could prove that pred was the direct cause of a cancer is pretty laughable anyway as there are so many variables that could contribute - smoking, diet, so many other things. They are just scaremongering to make money out of you.

[piglette]

I do remember reading something several years ago, but then ignored it after a bit of checking.

[HeronNS]

Same as the others. Don't think it is a concern. As PMRpro more or less said, life without pred would have made the last number of years a lot less worth living anyway!

Footnote: I'm in the process of finding a low dose which will keep a (probably) sarcoid skin condition in abeyance. Apparently my years on pred for PMR had been doing a lot more for me than dampening pain!

[Italybound62]

I actually read a while back from a different angle.. that people with PMR have elevated risk of developing cancer.

[PMRpro Ambassador in reply to Italybound62]

There is a very large increase in the risk of diagnosis of cancer in the first 6 months after diagnosis but that falls away again as time goes on. It is thought to be because a) PMR can be a symptom of some cancers so it isn't the PMR we talk about here but due to an underlying cancer and b) patients tend to be under increased medical supervision (or they were at the time of the study, may not be these days) so any cancers are seen sooner than they might have been otherwise.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articl....

[Gatorchief in reply to PMRpro]

I’m thinking that 69% of people with cancer 6 months after PMR diagnosis' is extremely high! My first question would be, can the diagnosis and 6 months period after be accurate as many people here have reported that they suffered for many months to years before diagnosed with PMR. Thanks to this web site I have learned that I have been experiencing many symptoms of PMR / GCA for that last few years. It just recently got to the point that could hardly function normally any more and my GP diagnosed the PMR and started me on Prednisone. There are so many symptoms of PMR /GCA that mimic many cancers. I just started getting some fatigue and random headaches for about an hour a day that I presume is from the prednisone after 4 months at 15mg. Today I’m very sore in shoulder and legs as I had an emergency with my home. ( water main broke and had to shut of the water and dig up the pipe to repair it) Digging up the pipe and repairing it was a job for me, but getting someone to do it would have been a two week wait. Had to go up to 20mg to get the aching to calm down. I have read that many of the people on the site have had or are fighting cancer but don’t seem to attribute it to PMR. Do the GP’ s there regularly screen the PMR patients for cancer? As always thank you for your wisdom about this.

[PMRpro Ambassador in reply to Gatorchief]

That isn't 69% of patients develop cancer - it is a 69% INCREASE IN RISK. That is a totally different thing.

For example, if in a group of 10,000 patients without PMR, 100 of them were found to have cancer in the next 6 months, in a same sized group of patients who DO have PMR, 169 would be found to have cancer.

[Gatorchief in reply to PMRpro]

Thank you so much. I have a terrible time figuring out medical /clinical findings, especially clinically significant percentages.

[PMRpro Ambassador in reply to Gatorchief]

It is the terminology you have to look at - it is what the media use for shock headlines, A risk of 69% of patients developing cancer is horrendous- but an increase in risk of 69% on a not terribly high risk in the first place is far less so.