Cancer Statistics

[Guest MorganKonaAlex]

I wasn't sure if I should start a new thread or post here. Having just adopted a new grey recovering from a broken hock, my Vet asked if there was metal used to stabilize the bone. She said it was well known metal implants can lead to Osteo. I started searching for studies. I found several pathology type studies. Upon dissection, the osteo seemed to have started at the site of a metal implant and/or a broken bone. What I couldn't find was a study comparing incident rates of metal implants and/or fractures with a control group. Does anyone know of such a study?

[DaisyDoodle]

A couple of thoughts...first of all...let me say, CANCER SUCKS!!! No doubt about it. My CoCo was one who died with (but perhaps not from) a non-osteo cancer, lymphoma...along w degenerative myelopathy....

 

...out of the mouth/keyboard of a semi-retired statistician...(who once worked as an epidemiologist in a cancer program)

 

We all have to die of something (people or GHs) which is to say, from an epidemiological perspective, GHs may be more likely to die from cancer because they are much less likely than other dogs to die from something else. Eg...obesity-related diseases, non-vaccination-related diseases, getting run over by cars because they have idiot humans, being killed in a dog fight because their human is an especially cruel idiot,,, you get the picture. Being put down at an early age because their breed was over-bred and now has a genetic anamoly (think hip displasia in Rotties, degenerative myelopathy in GSDs, etc).

 

Here's a human example (in this case compare historical time periods in humans to different dog breeds at a single time)....In the early 20th century, humans were much more likely to die at a young age of a contageous, acute disease...influenza, etc. If you took 100 people born in 1900, lots died early in life (lets say 30) of some acute illness... so there were only 70 left to died of chronic diseases like heart disease(n=30), cancer(n=30), dementia (n=10)...etc... [This is a GROSS oversimplification, but I hope it makes the point]

 

Today, far fewer children die of these acute, contageous illnesses.. so, let's say 25 of those 30 now live to adulthood to die of something else and half die of cancer...Has the cancer rate gone up? Now 42 or 43 peopole per 100 die of cancer instead of 30. Yes, the cancer rate goes up but it's _because_ the death rate from influenza, etc. has gone down.

 

So, it may be true that greyhounds are more prone to cancer than other breeds, but we do have to consider WHAT the other breeds are dying from.

 

Regarding osteo in AKC dogs...the only one I know of is Vinnie (here on GT), and he died from osteo at the very tender age of 17 months.

 

The one thing about NGA GH genealogy that has made me wonder lately is the (possible) over-use of a single sire. If one male can father 3-4000 puppies (Molotov, Fortress*) and he carries a gene for osteo, what does that do to the breed??? (Is this the same type of problem we're seeing in the other over-bred breeds, like Rotties, goldens etc??) It seems to me that the gene pool is being unnecessarily narrowed by using these few supposedly super dogs, at least some of whom were stud dogs for an especially long period of time because of a very early career-ending injury (how many were broken legs????).

 

I'm a statistician, not a geneticist, but it is my hope that the race owner/breeders have seen the osteo data and have begun to wonder the same as I have.

 

If this rambling rant doesn't make sense, please let me know. I'm so long-winded that I've tried to cut myself short but may have left out stuff that makes my post make sense.

[Jackandgrey]

The above makes tons of sense to me.

[Guest PNWtrillium]

It all makes sense to me, Donna. I've been wondering about the same idea (that both we and dogs are living long enough to die from different diseases than before) and appreciate your "ramblings."

 

Your thoughts about the genetic "funnel" (more and more breedings going through the same sire) hadn't occurred to me yet. I'm glad you brought up that question.

 

Ramble away....!

 

(OT: are you the GTer who has videos of some 2002 MGP races? If so, would you please PM or email me? Thx!)

[Houndtime]

Not denying that you can make statistics say anything you want them to, these results are very scary. Without seeing the written article or criteria used to determine the results, or the amount of dogs in the testing pool, I agree with Donna.

While I have no doubt that cancer is on the increase in humans as well, look at the numbers of greyhounds that are living longer, not because they are healthier; because they are just here. How can we compare the numbers, if the survival post racing has increased? What are we camparing them to?

What would have been the health and history of dogs who were euthanized or sold for medical research? That we don't know. The results of increased adoption is why we see a disease we might not of been able to document before.

We now have a greater research pool, dogs living longer, who for the most part don't have a lot of other medical issues, such as found in other breeds. I think these dogs are healthy because they are athletes. They train like any other athlete. Their hearts and lungs retain their athletic status for years after racing is just a memory for the dog.

My vet once said, as dogs are living longer, they eventually have to die from something. This something in greyhounds might be more cancer. The study linking genetics to contracting the disease, to me, seems to be a real possibility.

All this being said, I do hate cancer. It is the thief who robs us, everyday, of those we love.

[HopeForHounds]

I agree too. What Irene and Donna said makes sense, we have no idea how long these dogs would have lived as they weren't getting the chance years ago. Now they are, and on the whole are a pretty healthy bunch. I try not to get overly wound up about new cases of cancer posted here. The hard thing is they are often dogs I "know", so I hurt for their families.

 

I will still keep cancer in the forefront, the benefits to Dr Couto's research will benefit all those yet to come and who knows maybe even us. But, I won't dwell on it, I know only too well that things can happen in the blink of an eye. Enjoy every minute you can with your hounds. When you are with them, do what they do - Live In The NOW!

 

 

[Guest PNWtrillium]

Foxy's Mom, thank you for saying that. My first GH died from cancer, but I still feel weird at the idea of railing against it. In my worldview, staying angry at the existence of cancer gives it power over my life. I would be severely bummed if I came down with cancer and it could be traced back to using my life energy for hating anything.

 

Of course, that doesn't exclude putting my time, energy, and money behind efforts to understand and hopefully diminish or eradicate cancer of all kinds in all beings. (Of course, then deaths would occur for other reasons, wouldn't they.)

 

Excuse the philosophizing. Just something that comes up for me every so often. Carry on...

[Guest MZH]

I remember someone citing Dr. Couto and the statistic that they had managed to get one-year osteosarcoma survival to a little more than 60% with amputation and chemo. I'd be interested if there has been any further release of statistics, such as survival rates with different chemo treatments and so forth.

 

They do some great work there.

 

The Dogs of Hope article outlines the treatment protocols of 6 of the 7 greyhounds who lived from 27 to to 51 months.

 

I do wish vets would stop telling people that they're lucky if their osteo dog lives 6-12 months. That's unnecessarily discouraging and disheartening and makes people give up very early on.

 

Incidentally, the dogs who lived the longest had an infection at the amp site! Infection appears to be one's friend in this disease.

 

Marcia, still in CT

 

 

[Guest gottaluvgreysindy]

AKC greyhounds rarely get osteo. I know of exactly one who had it. Racing may have something to do with; I have no idea, really.

 

There are also NGA Greyhounds with osteo who live far longer than the standard 6-9 month figure that veterinarians seem to like to quote.

 

If you'd like to read some good news about greyhounds with osteo, you might want to go back to the Fall 04 issue of CG Magazine. I wrote an article quoting seven Greyhound owners whose dogs lived from 27 to 51 months post diagnosis. It outlines their treatments too. The article is titled "Dogs of Hope: Long-term Osteosarcoma Survivors."

 

BTW, some of those long-term survivors died of old age, not osteo.

 

Marcia in CT soon to be in SC

 

 

I would LOVE to read this article. Could someone tell me where if it is still available or where I could borrow it. I promise to return it. My boy is currently (as I type) at OSU for a regular check up. He is now 10 months post amp and going strong. for good results from todays check up.

 

[Guest MorganKonaAlex]

I remember someone citing Dr. Couto and the statistic that they had managed to get one-year osteosarcoma survival to a little more than 60% with amputation and chemo. I'd be interested if there has been any further release of statistics, such as survival rates with different chemo treatments and so forth.

 

They do some great work there.

 

The Dogs of Hope article outlines the treatment protocols of 6 of the 7 greyhounds who lived from 27 to to 51 months.

 

I do wish vets would stop telling people that they're lucky if their osteo dog lives 6-12 months. That's unnecessarily discouraging and disheartening and makes people give up very early on.

 

Incidentally, the dogs who lived the longest had an infection at the amp site! Infection appears to be one's friend in this disease.

 

Marcia, still in CT

I agree Vets should be quoting the correct median survival rates of 12-14 months with chemo and amp. But 27-51 months shouldn't be expected either. Hoped for, but not expected. I've had 2 boys with osteo and have experienced the spectrum. I have Morgan who is still ok 17 months after diagnosis. And I lost Alex before even completing chemo. Some forms of the cancer are not as aggressive as others. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell. All prognostic factors favored Alex, except maybe age. Younger dogs tend to have more aggressive cases of osteo than older dogs. I wouldn't have consider Alex "younger" at 8. Morgan was 10.

 

The chemo studies show 7-30% survival at 2 years.

[Burpdog]

In my worldview, staying angry at the existence of cancer gives it power over my life

 

Don't be angry, be determined to find a cure!

 

I agree Vets should be quoting the correct median survival rates of 12-14 months with chemo and amp. But 27-51 months shouldn't be expected either

 

No, and people should not be given false hope. They should be given facts when faced with the difficult decision of what to do. The facts are the average is still 14 months. Yes, their dog can live 4 years but can also be gone in 4 months.

 

The one thing about NGA GH genealogy that has made me wonder lately is the (possible) over-use of a single sire. If one male can father 3-4000 puppies (Molotov, Fortress*) and he carries a gene for osteo, what does that do to the breed??? (Is this the same type of problem we're seeing in the other over-bred breeds, like Rotties, goldens etc??) It seems to me that the gene pool is being unnecessarily narrowed by using these few supposedly super dogs, at least some of whom were stud dogs for an especially long period of time because of a very early career-ending injury (how many were broken legs????).

 

Overuse is not an issue assuming the sire is sound. Whether he is or not, that is the question. In my opinion, the over breeding is done and lack of soundness is there, because there seems to be no criteria for pooling traits, rather going on one single dog's performance. Were I breeding greyhounds, I would be hard pressed to find a greyhound sire to breed to based on pedigree. They are all a hodge podge -- or at least the ones I've looked at. A genetic pedigree would be very interesting.

 

Can disease be spread over the entire breed? Of course. Look what happened to Dobes and VWD. Traced to one very popular sire. This is also the danger of out crossing instead of line breeding.

 

I believe genetic pedigress are definetely needed in the study of cancers in greyhounds.

 

 

[Guest MZH]

<<No, and people should not be given false hope. >>

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm pretty sure the folks who shared their stories in that article feel their dogs are dogs of hope, not dogs of false hope.

 

My purpose in presenting those cases was to give people a semblance of reasonable hope and present possibilities, not to perpetuate the always negative outcome that's still so prevalent.

 

I do agree that if a dog has mets or other medical issues, no, it won't live more than 6-14 months or whatever is declared the average.

 

Edited to fix my usual typos.

Edited June 28, 2007 by MZH

[Burpdog]

This is why I say "false hope". When people are distraught, talking with the vet or oncologist, what they come away with is the longest amount of time that was mentioned.

 

I don't think people should be not given hope, that is why I would say 14 months is the average and it could be shorter and it could be longer. For instance, Max is at 30 months now (his cancer has returned and pain managed). I think facts should be given and what is.

 

What is -- is that some dogs die at 4 months and some can go 4 years.

 

Perhaps I am not conveying what I think well. I think people should be told the truth. Anything less, for instance if a vet tells them the dog can go 4 years, without telling them it could be 4 months, that is false hope.

 

If I had a dog that was a possible amp candidate, and I did choose that avenue, I would of course hope for the longest possible outcome. However, I do know the possibility of the shortest.

 

Many people who choose to amputate and do chemo must hold on to hope and believe -- otherwise, what is the point of going through it all?

[Guest MZH]

<<This is why I say "false hope". When people are distraught, talking with the vet or oncologist, what they come away with is the longest amount of time that was mentioned.

 

I don't think people should be not given hope, that is why I would say 14 months is the average and it could be shorter and it could be longer. For instance, Max is at 30 months now (his cancer has returned and pain managed). I think facts should be given and what is.>>

 

 

Why do vets feel the need to states such negative-sounding time frames though and strongly imply that osteo is essentially hopeless? Every dog is different and is not just part of a statistic.

 

All I can say is that here in CT, the vets say "Your dog has 3 months with no treatment and 6 to maybe 12 with amp and chemo." To me, that is falsely negative and a lie, really. Talking like that to distraught people doesn't even give folks the chance to hope for anything beyond that.

 

I guess I'm an eternal optimist and refuse to give up that easily! I want the truth too, but when vets give such short time frames like that, well, let's face it; their guesses are as good as anyones and it's really depressing. If my vet ever told me something like that, I'd be looking for a new vet.

[Guest MZH]

<<I would LOVE to read this article. Could someone tell me where if it is still available or where I could borrow it. I promise to return it. My boy is currently (as I type) at OSU for a regular check up. He is now 10 months post amp and going strong. for good results from todays check up.

>>

 

Well, it's still on my computer if you have no luck getting it elsewhere.

 

It's a little different than the published version though. The original included a Great Dane who had the limb-sparing surgery and lived 5 years post dx, IIRC, and died in her sleep at age 10.5. I know she wasn't a Greyhound, but it was so awesome I included her story anyway. The article is long and space was short, so her story would be the logical place to make a cut.

 

Marcia

 

 

[DaisyDoodle]

I should clarify that I don't think there is anything wrong w Dr. Couto's research. I support it, hope to be able to get a copy of the technical version of the paper, and also support Hope for Hounds. It's just that I worry that people are beginning to shy away from getting greyhounds because they fear osteo.

 

The one thing about NGA GH genealogy that has made me wonder lately is the (possible) over-use of a single sire. If one male can father 3-4000 puppies (Molotov, Fortress*) and he carries a gene for osteo, what does that do to the breed??? (Is this the same type of problem we're seeing in the other over-bred breeds, like Rotties, goldens etc??) It seems to me that the gene pool is being unnecessarily narrowed by using these few supposedly super dogs, at least some of whom were stud dogs for an especially long period of time because of a very early career-ending injury (how many were broken legs????).

 

Overuse is not an issue assuming the sire is sound. Whether he is or not, that is the question. In my opinion, the over breeding is done and lack of soundness is there, because there seems to be no criteria for pooling traits, rather going on one single dog's performance. Were I breeding greyhounds, I would be hard pressed to find a greyhound sire to breed to based on pedigree. They are all a hodge podge -- or at least the ones I've looked at. A genetic pedigree would be very interesting.

 

Can disease be spread over the entire breed? Of course. Look what happened to Dobes and VWD. Traced to one very popular sire. This is also the danger of out crossing instead of line breeding.

 

I believe genetic pedigress are definetely needed in the study of cancers in greyhounds.

 

I guess my concern is that since cancer in general is often an age-related disease, that offspring and grand-offspring might be born before the sire shows any indication of cancer. Perhaps it would be interesting to examine any info available on the causes of death of the top ten sires each year for the last couple of decades and see if any of them (and perhaps their parents) may have died of cancer.

[Guest MZH]

<<I should clarify that I don't think there is anything wrong w Dr. Couto's research. I support it, hope to be able to get a copy of the technical version of the paper, and also support Hope for Hounds. It's just that I worry that people are beginning to shy away from getting greyhounds because they fear osteo.>>

 

Maybe we should all keep in mind this statement in a Purdue University paper: "The breeds with an apparent increased risk of developing osteosarcoma include Rottweiler, Saint Bernard, Great Dane, Greyhound, Great Pyrenees, Golden Retriever, and Irish Setter."

 

The fear of osteo sure hasn't hurt the popularity of Goldens. Likewise, nor will it deter me from having Greyhounds as long as I'm able to care for them. Now to convince the adopting public to not worry about osteo so much either.

 

[Guest 2greygirls]

I have a couple views on this, I have known, as have we all, many hounds that died of osteo. I think that NGA hounds are , in general, very healthy, I think they live longer than other large breeds, and I sometimes wonder if that doesn't somehow lead to more cancer. THat being said, I know many hounds ho have come down with cancer at a very young age, my girls' brother died of osteo quite young. I do believe that it will be cancer that takes them from me. I think there must be some validity to some sires throwing the gene, I know that we have a litter now, from a sire who shall remain nameless that has some very disturbing, unidentifiable problems, one pup even broke his back in the runs...this is not the first time that my friend has had problems with that sire, yet he is still a popular stud..soooooooo this makes me think that somewhere in the lines there may be a gene involved. I do not think that racing per se causes cancer. I think that if there is a correlation between injuries and cancer, than maybe, those who get injured more easily are more prone to cancer..maybe they injure more easily because of that gene. I am no scientist, but I klnow many hounds who never stepped foot on a track who have OS. I may be adopting one of our retired boys, who broke a hock, training back after cracking a toe. The strange thing is, the year before this same dog had broken a toe ( on the same leg he eventually broke his hock in) Now most of his injuries came when he was sprinting....not racing, not running particularly hard. Is he prone to having weaker bones? Is he now more prone to OS. I would think that might be so. His brother and sister have had none of his injuries, save for his brother having pulled a muscle a couple times. I don't think that the racing gene pool is too small or any one stud is getting over bred, but maybe there is a gene in the NGA pool that leads to Osteo..if so, it would be amazing to find, and it would be really beneficial to find out if injury leads to cancer, or if the predisposition is there, and if injury does lead to cancer, why, and what can we do to prevent it.

[Guest Vinnie]

Let me start by thanking DaisyDoodle for remembering Vinnie and his battle. By coincidence, yesterday, June 27, was the 1st anniversary of our helping him to the Rainbow Bridge. Neither Cathy nor myself were able to put anything in remembrance yesterday. We will probably post something over the weekend. Thanks again for all your kind thoughts and support during a very overwhelming period last year - it made a huge difference to our family and in deciding to open our heart and home to Vinnie's sister, Gracie.

 

Everything that has been written has been very thought provoking, and we're looking forward to seeing Dr. Cuoto's laymen's version of his research.

 

Someone mentioned that they would be interested in the statistics with treatment - for those of you that did not follow our angel Vinnie's story, here is a time & treatment breakdown for him (unfortunately, Vinnie's was extremely aggressive and we have been told that he was the youngest one that most people knew of) - he came up with a sore paw (wrist) the middle/end of Mar '06 - tested and diagnosed within 3 weeks (3 different opinions) and amputation of right front leg done Apr '06 - followed by chemo every 2 weeks for what was to be 8 visits - on his 4th visit - they took new tests to see how he was doing and found that it had invaded 1 lung completely and was in over 1/2 of the other lung - we gently guided Vinnie to the Rainbow Bridge on what would have been his 14 month birthday (yes, 14 months)! From time of first sign to the last day we had with him - 3 months! But, it was 3 months longer than we would have had without treatment and except for the 1st week he was running around enjoying life and getting even bigger (we called him a monster puppy because he was very big/tall).

 

Most important of all - that extra time was because of support & guidance from Dr. Cuoto (Vinnie is part of his study and a couple of others) and the members of Greytalk.com. Thank you all so very much.

 

Obviously the possibliity of OS in greyhounds did not prevent us from getting another as we got a sibling to Vinnie from the same litter. Gracie is doing well, as are Vinnie's other siblings. Gracie turned two on April 27.

 

Thank you to everyone who has a concern about cancer in greyhounds and other breeds as well, and for those who help to take care of those who are affected by this most dreaded disease. Without these studies we would never learn how to fight and hopefully very soon, beat cancer in our most precious furkids. And who knows, maybe even lead to a cure in us 2 legged critters!

Edited June 28, 2007 by Vinnie

[Guest GiJenn51]

That's 58% of the cases reported died of cancer? Right?

 

We need to know the sampling methods before we really know what context these numbers are in.

 

Not saying they're off or wrong, but if this was a cancer survey and the people polled were ones affected by cancer, then the numbers will be skewed high. If it was a survey taken across all greyhound owners, then the numbers might be more accurate. I can't tell from just this though.

 

 

I know I didn't do the survey. I've had two die in the past year-- one from osteo.

 

 

 

My thoughts--- Greyhounds are a large breed and typically dogs this size don't have an expectancy of 12-14+ years. It would seem that given the longevity of the breed the prevalence of cancer would be higher.

 

 

No matter the numbers. CANCER SUCKS

[Burpdog]

The unknown and young dogs who never stepped foot on a track (I can think of two on this board right away) is why a genetic pedigree is necessary.

 

All I can say is that here in CT, the vets say "Your dog has 3 months with no treatment and 6 to maybe 12 with amp and chemo." To me, that is falsely negative and a lie, really. Talking like that to distraught people doesn't even give folks the chance to hope for anything beyond that.

 

One cannot, nor should, take away hope. Again, the truth. Obviously, what they are telling the patients is not the truth! It seems to me they are ill advised or not advised. I would document these cases and make a journal and email to Ohio State and ask them to comment. Or, perhaps another approach? What then?

 

One of my first painful experiences in dogs was when my Great Dane's brother came down with lymphoma at age two. I was devestated. As the breeder told me, "you have to take the bad with the good". It's a comment I've remembered many, many times over the past 10 years. That was back in 1970, so dogs have been getting cancer for probably as long as they have been around.

[Guest MZH]

 

[<<One cannot, nor should, take away hope.>>

 

Agreed. That's why I put the article together -- to give people hope and to counter the always gloom-and-doom pronouncements from vets who never heard of long-term survivors.

 

<< Again, the truth. Obviously, what they are telling the patients is not the truth! It seems to me they are ill advised or not advised. I would document these cases and make a journal and email to Ohio State and ask them to comment. Or, perhaps another approach? What then?>>

 

OSU speaks in terms of research statistics and I talk in terms of cases I know about. I can't think of a way to reconcile those differing points of view. What I would present is anectodotal in their world and that would/does not go over very well.

 

<<One of my first painful experiences in dogs was when my Great Dane's brother came down with lymphoma at age two. I was devestated. As the breeder told me, "you have to take the bad with the good". It's a comment I've remembered many, many times over the past 10 years. That was back in 1970, so dogs have been getting cancer for probably as long as they have been around.>>

 

Exactly right!

Edited June 30, 2007 by MZH