 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 Marijuana use may be associated with testicular cancer in young men, a new study finds.
September 10th, 2012
03:39 PM ET
Marijuana use may raise risk of testicular cancerMarijuana may double the risk of testicular cancer among young men, particularly tumors that are more severe, according to a new study published in the American Cancer Society's journal, Cancer. "This is a very consistent finding now that marijuana seems to be associated with the worst kind of testis cancer that occurs in young men ... (it) may well be causal," said study author Victoria Cortessis, an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine in Los Angeles. Two previous studies in 2009 and 2010 found similar associations. According to the National Cancer Institute, testicular cancer occurs most commonly in young or middle-aged men. Of the 8,590 new cases estimated in the United States this year, about 360 men will die. The cause of most cases is unknown, according to the American Cancer Society. The rates of testicular cancer in men are increasing– as much as doubling every 20 to 30 years, Cortessis said. At the same time, marijuana use has increased, often in young males. "It may be that marijuana use is actually interfering with hormonal signaling in a way that disturbs function of the testis," she said. "That's a possibility - that's something that we can now formulate specific hypotheses about and try to understand." In the study, researchers examined the self-reported history of recreational drug use among 163 men who had testicular cancer. All were between the ages of 18 and 35 when diagnosed in Los Angeles County between 1986 and 1991. Researchers asked questions about their family history of cancer and their own use of various drugs, including if they had ever used them and, if so, the years they did so and the average number of times per week of use. They compared these histories to that of 292 healthy men of the same age, race and ethnicity. "We saw a pattern of dose response that we didn't expect," Cortessis said. Men who reported long-term usage of marijuana did not face greater risk, she said. The findings suggest "early experimental use," which would be short-term, may trigger increased cancer risk. "But that is speculation, and something we're going to look into with data in the future," she said. "... That certainly seems plausible because we know that hormonal signaling governs a great deal of the sexual development of the testis," she added. "It may be that guys who, when they're still pretty young, going through puberty, if they are experimenting with marijuana, it may be that that is the most harmful period when this could happen, but that's only one possible interpretation of those data." The findings suggest that the possible effects be taken into consideration both in personal decisions regarding recreational drug use, in addition to times when marijuana and its derivatives are being considered as medicinal treatment for young males.
Next entry »Feds create new strategy to fight suicide
« Previous entryGetting children ready for flu season
|
  About this blog
Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love. Recent Comments
 |
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
So let me get this straight...acute usage of marijuana causes testicular cancer, but as long as you keep smoking it you're fine??
I call bull...
No, they are saying that the chance of getting testicular cancer does not increase with continued usage, only that marijuana usage at a young age is what may be the trigger. However, this insinuates that if you wait to partake in this particular drug until after your testes have completed developing, then there should be no risk associated with testicular cancer. This article seems very premature and it sounds like there is much more research to do to substantiate a link between the two.
Let's put it this way- women don't smoke when they're pregnant because their babies are still developing.
Likewise, a young man shouldn't smoke while his balls are developing. After that, go for it....
In so many words, yeah, Bannister, that's what they're suggesting.
If this stuff is ever going to be legal, we're going to have to set a minimum age, just like tobacco and alcohol and studies like this could play an important role in striking the right balance.
All they are actually saying is that it might be worthwhile to commission a larger and longer study to search for a causal link. This is like saying you found a message in a bottle and it might be worth getting a boat and looking for the castaway who sent it.
This article seemed to be based on speculations. This was also only studied in Los Angeles, CA that has and AWFUL air and water quality which has been proven to give people cancers. This study is going to push back medical marijuana based on speculations. In your study are you testing high grade or low grade marijuana, because that makes ALL the difference in the world, as well as how it was grown. Were pesticides used on it to kill bugs, because thats in cigarettes and proven harmful. Did the grower use miracle grow to get a bigger plant, because that has also been proven. If you are going to take a pure, organic grown plant and use that as part of a study, it would be sufficient enough. This is why medical marijuana should be legalized so that people can get pure medicine and not street crap.
Um... yeah, right. Tell me another one.
And this "scientific study" was peer reviewed and substantiated by whom? NO ONE.
Wow, that's great science...
There are other studies that show people that smoke pot are even more less likely to get, say, lung cancer than even people that DO NOT SMOKE ANYTHING.
Explain that....
Wrong. The study was published in the American Cancer Society's peer reviewed journal. It's not anti-pot, it just found a correlation between using a substance, and a medical condition. It did not claim to have discovered causation. Relax.
Publishing studies that can't determine causation are junk studies. If you cannot determine what CAUSED the issue you are studying then you are merely speculating, and a bad speculation at that when you use such a small number of cases.
"We saw a pattern of dose response that we didn't expect," Cortessis said. Men who reported long-term usage of marijuana did not face greater risk, she said. The findings suggest "early experimental use," which would be short-term, may trigger increased cancer risk."
"But that is speculation, and something we're going to look into with data in the future," she said.
Or maybe there was no correlation at all and it was just coincidental given the small sample size they used– numbers were not provided in the article or even the study that show marijuana as the specific factor in the cause of their cancer. They ONLY noticed that a higher population among the control group had a experimented with marijuana at a young age than those that were healthy. That is the extent of what the study say and the researchers actually say this. CNN is running with it to grab headlines– go figure.
Also, 360 deaths per year nationally from testicular cancer, even if SOME of those are attributed to early marijuana use is marginal, compared to the literally millions of people using it. 162 million people have used cannabis (as of 2004) and 360 have died from testicular cancer (if 100% of those deaths from testicular cancer were due to marijuana use) then that would be 1 in 450,000. Odds of getting stuck by lightning are 576,000 to 1, so not too far off from that.
i agree. Just another scare tactic.
Ughhh ok.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
Keeps everybodys eye off the ball, tho...
A crock–I know four young men who were diagnosed with testicular cancer and none of them smoked anything, much less marijuana.
So what? Did you do a random study that involved thousands of people? No, it's just a few people you know, not a big enough sample to determine anything.
So this study is junk too because they used less than 300 cases. Even the author admits its a speculation.
" Did you do a random study that involved thousands of people?" Neither did the doctors in the story. They are trying to get a grant from someone to do a real study, though.
Great – your anecdotal evidence should be very influential to lawmakers. Seriously get an education
Also likly, you will grow hair in the palms of your hands, sprout a second head. Ever seen that 1930;s movie Wreafer Maddness, this would fit right in.
listen idiot....the pot of 2012 is not the same pot of the 1960s or 70s...this stuff is laced with more chemicals then ever before..if you think you are smoking straight marijuana...then you are definately smoking something...so it could be that there is an increased risk now as the drug has become less pure and more diluted with other drugs and chemicals.
ser:
if you grow your own, you can control what goes into it
Another ridiculous study that should never have made the papers. 8500 cases out of 175 million males in America. That's 0.0005% of the population. Tying the increase in testicular cancer to increase in pot uses is like saying viewing TV, which has increased over the last 20 years, causes testicular cancer or riding a bike.
It's called controlling for confounders, which they did. Read the study next time
Why does CNN keep publishing fluff pieces about marijuana studies that are not peer reviewed and have no concrete findings? This is the second in a month or so. The study had a tiny pool and no solid conclusion. This is irresponsible "journalism."
The study is published in the American Cancer Society's peer reviewed journal.
The American Cancer Society's journal, CANCER, does not publish fluff pieces.
I'm calling B.S. on this article! Dr. Manuel Guzman won the 2005 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his work with cannabis to block endothelial growth factors that provide blood to cancer cells. Cannabis does not cause cancer – it cures it!
Well, Tylor called BS so I guess we're done here. Forget that it's peer reviewed science.
You do know that it's possible for a substance to have a positive effect in one area and a negative one in another right? That's called a side-effect.
Ummm...Who actually wrote this "scientific" article, exactly?
It's legit, for what it is, which is a pilot program being used as a lure for larger grants to study the same thing. It's just too small to mean anything.
Cigarette smoking definitely increases cancer risk and the risk of chronic lung disease in people of all ages, yet tobacco is legal. Alcohol increases the risk of liver and heart disease, destroys brain cells, contributes to acts of violence and car accidents and destroys careers and marriages, yet alcohol is legal.
It doesn't matter how many bogus studies condemn marijuana, for the sake of consistency and reason, it's time to end the costly and unjustified criminalization of marijuana.
no wonder cnn's rating continue to tank...
Tabloid science == "it MAY raise the risk". Another piece of pure propaganda. Here's the truth. They found no solid evidence of any kind that is actually does raise the risk, so the abandon their scientific standards go straight for the propaganda.
It's not tabloid science. Tabloid science would be claiming a causal relationship where they only found a correlation. This is pretty par for the course for a medical study.
another propaganda BS story
My thoughts exactly. I bet caring a cell phone in your pocket increases the risk for testicular cancer way way more.
Wonder if any Pharmaceutical Co. was involved with this assumption?????
Just another ploy to try and stop the overwhelming increase in the demand to legalize medincinal usage ??
I thought that the common scare tactic was that Marijuana made mens boobs grow larger? If so I'd be 'double D's' by now..
If you want to see if any corporations were involved GO READ THE STUDY. It's linked right in the article, and everything is there, open and public for all to see. That's sorta the point of peer-reviewed scientific journals.
If you play with yourself you will go blind, if you smoke you'll get cancer, if you don't do anything wrong your whole life, you still die.
Irrelevant to the conclusions of the study, but nice attempt at a straw man.
@ Guest. Why waste money on something like this? Don't they have more important diseases to study and find cures for? How about fetal alcohol syndrome for one? Oh and getting the word out to teens.
Trotting out the old "alcohol is bad" argument again? And money spent on trying to find things that are related to cancer treatment is a waste?
Did you read the whole article or did you just look at the headline, see "Pot is Bad Mmmmmmkay" and scroll straight on down to the comment section?
The authors found that long term pot use by adults did not correlate with increased cancer risk, but that experimentation by younger males who are still developing may possibly have negative effects. That seems to me like something worth learning. I happen to be pro-legalization, but information like this is going to be important when deciding what the minimum age for use is going to be, don't you think?
@Guest: Agreed. Unfortunately some of CNN's readers are too stoned for reading comprehension. It's unfortunate but true.
Kelly, the lead doctor has done studies looking at other factors too. She's more anti-cancer than anything else, but it's a tiny study that means nothing so far.
Complete bull. THC has shown in many studies to actually slow the growth of tumors, exhibiting anti cancer properties. Our beloved government at the moment has no such interest in such things however. It is no coincidence you see stories like this get going around election time.
So..why is your study good science but this one's peer reviewed conclusions are bad science? This study has nothing to do with government agendas. It's all open and public for anyone to read, including methodology and sources.
The study's authors are not making a statement about political policy, simply reporting a correlation that their data suggest.
This study will be of significant interest when the use of marijuana is decriminilised or made legal and an age limit is required for legal purposes.
Who funded the study?
Click the link and read for yourself. The study's linked right in the article.
Guest, you are awesome!!!!!! In the middle of the plethora of emotional comments against an article published in a peer reviewed Journal of the American Cancer Society, you restored the voice of Reason!!!!
I wish. They just keep waving their pitchforks at me.
I happen to think the prohibition of pot does more harm than good by a wide margin, but trying to shout down anything that may be negative just makes the argument weaker.
A news item yesterday reported the US has a higher percentage of its population incarcerated than any other industrialized nation. This is a ridiculous waste of human potential, not to mention tax dollars.
Er, pointing out that the sample is too small and there's no way to weed out other carcinogens is not emotional. Sorry if you can't take criticism.
Wasn't this idea professed in "Reefer Madness". If not, it should have been.
Your answer to a peer reviewed scientific article is some 60 year old movie that was so misguided it's a joke to this day?
The study actually found that smoking pot as an adult, even over long periods of time, does not correlate to increased cancer risk, it did, however, suggest a possible danger in allowing children to smoke it. That seems like a sensible conclusion to me.
No.
I'm neither confirming or denying that I partook in the use of grass as a young man, but I will keep you posted if I develop cancer of the nuts.
TMI
This is such a crock of BS~ Can anyone say "Reefer Madness part II"? This is a blatant attempt by the media and Government-funded research to spark a new hysteria against the oldest and most used medicine known to mankind. I am tired of seeing this kind of story. The speculation here is sickening, and it is portrayed in the headline as fact. Irresponsible. Period. Shame on CNN for running this story.
See comment below. You're pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.
Guys, take a deep breath, relax, and read what was written in the article more closely. Even better, check out the study itself. It's not anti-pot. It found that smoking pot as an adult did not correlate with increased risk of this type of cancer, even with prolonged use.
The study did highlight a potential danger with allowing young males who are still developing to access the drug too early. This is consistent with lots of substances found in our daily lives. It's not a radical idea.
When the internet collectively freaks out at the mere suggestion that someone dare think a negative thought about pot, you play directly into the stereotype that middle America has about you, and they're the ones who get politicians who make laws elected. They read you howling on these forums and see a cartoon character in their minds. You'll help your cause far more in the long run by being thoughtful and deliberate in your conversations.
The problem is the way it's reported.
I read it carefully, and checked the study that's linked. I didn't find it too hard to figure it out. The problem isn't the way it's reported, it's the way a lot of folks on the internet reflexively react to the mere notion that there might be a risk associated with pot use. If you doubt the impartiality of the article, as I did, you should check the study.
Reading comprehension isn't a strength in the US these days, at least not on internet boards. Worrying, isn't it?
tacc2, you are right about the meaning of "beg the question" but Guest is still right about the right interpretation of the article!
They sure are ramping up the anti-pot propaganda lately! Apparently this magical plant causes everything from ball cancer to cannibalism!
It already causes dain bramage..
I hear it causes white women to seek sexual relations with black entertainers and others!
More BS "science". "Studies" like this one don't mean anything. This is garbage. This is not real science.
"In the study, researchers examined the self-reported history of recreational drug use among 163 men who had testicular cancer. All were between the ages of 18 and 35 when diagnosed in Los Angeles County between 1986 and 1991.
Researchers asked questions about their family history of cancer and their own use of various drugs, including if they had ever used them and, if so, the years they did so and the average number of times per week of use.
They compared these histories to that of 292 healthy men of the same age, race and ethnicity."
Looks like they used an extremely small study group and also relied on self reporting. With such a small self reporting group of people, I could show just about any correlation you can imagine. DO DOUBLE BLIND EXPERIMENTS (NOT SURVEYS) WITH A CONTROL GROUP OR STFU AND GO HOME!
While it's possible to get government permission to use pot in clinical studies, you obviously have no idea what a herculean task it is. They have nothing else to rely on besides self-reporting. In fact, in sociological studies, self-reporting is an acceptable methodology as long as you make suitable attempts to remove responders who don't seem to be telling the truth. It's not perfect which is why, if you read the study carefully, you'll find they didn't claim to have proved anything.
But if it's just junk science then I guess you don't think the conclusion that adults smoking had no correlation with increased cancer rates, even given decades of prolonged use was any good either.
Guest: As a matter of fact, I DO find the conclusion that adults smoking had no correlation with increased cancer rate to be no good either. And I do know how hard it is to get government pot for studies. It's nearly impossible. And have you seen the grass clippings the government passes off as cannabis? It's barely more than hemp. THAT is part of the problem. The government is purposely obstructing real research on cannabis.
This kind of garbage science conclusion begs the question... Who funded this?
This kind of garbage comment begs the question... Did you read the article? Click the link that takes you to the actual study and take a look for yourself.
The use of the phrase, "begs the question", raises the question; Do any of you actually know what it means to "beg the question"?
Oh, and as far as I can see the study does not show who funded it. Only who did it and where it was done.
Why all the negativity towards this article? This is EXACTLY how Science works, by using the scientific method in order to deduce a possible correlation between two different variables using experimentation. There is no hidden political undertones here, this is simply a study performed to test the hypothesis that cannabis can have a negative impact on the developing testes of a young male. If you don't like how the wording of the CNN article, click the link and read the actual study. It is peer reviewed and has the methodology and findings printed in the paper. And if you don't like the study, do your own random double blind study to see if the paper is incorrect.
This article in no way supports marijuana prohibition. Alcohol and cigarettes increase incidence of many cancers, heart disease, stroke, etc. etc. and its till legal. Nobody said marijuana was 100% without harm, but the minimal harmful effects in no way make a logical argument for its prohibition. If that were considered logic, then alcohol, cigs, junk food, fried food, and sugar would all be illegal. Just making a point here in case anyone thinks this is a valid argument for keeping it illegal, its not.
According to this study, if I snort cocaine I'm LESS likely to get testicular cancer. I think that gives me enough information to determine how reliable the information is.
So even it this is true, it could just be from the blunts and tobacco because cigs might be able to cause testicular cancer... so use a pipe. And, if it has a risk of causing this kind of cancer just legalize it because we already legalize tobacco and alcohol which could cause cancer as well.
Attention world. All these researchers can do is present their findings. Its up to you and your ginormous (and self-righteously cynical) brains to decide what to do. If you don't like what this information is suggesting, then ignore it. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. But at least now you have more information to make your decision.
If this information wasn't made public until the year 2040, you all would be first in line whining about how this information was purposely kept secret to punish the free-minded, non-conformist, creative marijuana smokers of the world. Get over yourselves.
Soooo... did they ask about tobacco use in these young men? Alcohol use? or just marijuana?
This is interesting, considering the American Cancer Society ALSO supports marijuana/cannabis as a medicine, knowing it KILLS cancer cells and prohibits new cancer cell growth.
Are testicles just THAT strong?
Pot smoking damages brain function.
Proof–Just read the multiple replies posted here.
Alcohol damages brain function even more and your point is....
there are several ongoing clinical trials to test resveratrol to fight against certain cancers. May the solution be to take two res-juventa a day if you HAVE to smoke it?
they got cancer eating mc donalds
What is so insane is that no matter what the government does, or media tries to say, people who want to partake in natures gift will always have a source to obtain it, whether by growing, state run dispensaries or the underground black market. It would make so much more sense if the hypocrite politicians to just see this for what it is and do the right thing for once in their life. I guess I will never understand why a plant is so bad when it can help so many. It's time to tax, regulate and stimulate our economy with this gift to mankind.
Marijuana needs to be legalized already
You can say anything you want with statistics. I want to see some real laboratory results before I believe any negative associations made with marijuana using purely stats. Laboratory research is showing exactly the opposite (http://norml.org/library/recent-research-on-medical-marijuana). Substantiating in a different model gives weight, this finding, to me, has no weight. Take this article with a fraction of a grain of salt.
This is the right site for anybody who wishes to find out about this topic. You understand a whole lot its almost tough to argue with you (not that I personally will need to…HaHa). You definitely put a brand new spin on a topic which has been written about for a long time. Great stuff, just great!
Can I simply just say what a relief to find someone who really understands what they're talking about on the web. You actually understand how to bring an issue to light and make it important. A lot more people really need to read this and understand this side of the story. I can't believe you are not more popular because you certainly have the gift.
I gotta bookmark this website it seems really useful .
http://susiekim.kr/
On what basis did they conclude that smoking marijuana can risk the possibility if TC???
I only used to smoke only 'Normal' 2 cigrates in a day and occassionally drinks.I've not taken any drugs or weed or marijuana in my life even after I had many opportunities and rather I used to tell my friends not to smoke marijuana or weed.But I only got TC.I just know 2 others(only via email) who're TC survivors from the country where I live and even they did not smoke or drink.
How could even these doctors or researches come to even an assumption that marijuana increases the risk of cancer?
Is that because TC is mostly common in boys and young men in US,Europe,South America ??? We all know that boys and young men and other crowd of all ages in US,Europe,South American countries all starts smoking weed,marijuana,drugs, sex ,drinks,parties,at a very very young age.And taking some surveys in those countries and to conclude with a such a silly stupid statement.
Have u ever thought before even posting or making such conclusion about others who've not done any of these and still gets TC? I'm so embarrassed and depressed....Hardly I've told to any about my TC and I know these kind of statements have been read by my family and even though they have not asked me but I know what they're thinking of me now.I had restricted many of the enjoyments and all these years what I've lived for to be known as a good human , is all gone.... You people are not humans ................will not forgive you.......................................................................