Published on
Updated
Reading 2 mins.
A new study challenges the theory that men have more cancers because of their lifestyle. Biology would be more involved.
Do men experience more cancers because of a generally more dangerous lifestyle (more smoking, more risky jobs, etc.)? The theory has long been shared, before being confronted with a reality: women are increasingly adopting the same way of life, without increasing this ratio of cancers between the sexes. In 2016, a first scientific study, conducted by Harvard and MIT, sought an answer from the side of male and female biological factors. A study published on August 8 in the journal Cancer supports this hypothesis.
21 tumors and cancers concerned
To refine their theory, the scientists analyzed this time the risk of the appearance of twenty-one malignant tumors in parts of the body common to both sexes, through 300,000 medical records. And reviewed several factors for each of them: risk behaviors (smoking and alcohol consumption), anthropometric characteristics (body mass index and height), lifestyle factors (physical activity, diet , taking medication), as well as medical and family history.
In the vast majority of cases, the disease actually strikes men more. Only thyroid and gallbladder cancers are more common in female subjects. But beyond this known fact, the study made it possible to challenge a preconceived idea about lifestyle: according to the data analyzed, non-biological factors would explain only 11% to 50% of the increased risk of develop the disease in men.
Consult an oncologist online
Factors yet to be determined
A discovery supported by Sarah Jackson, lead author of the study “The environmental factor cannot be the main reason for the differences in cancer incidence between the two sexes. There are inherent biological differences between men and women that strongly influence the risk of developing cancer.”
While some facts are gradually emerging, such as the fact that testosterone, for example, is more involved in skin and liver cancers, the biological factors are not yet well determined and require further investigation. Especially since the factors involved may be different depending on the type of cancer.
But beyond knowing a little more about the causes and origins of cancer, the study could also help to move forward in another area, and put an end to the historical under-representation of women in clinical trials. Indeed, drug dosages carried out according to male data are regularly pointed out as unsatisfactory in women. Further study of biological differences in cancers may well alleviate this problem.