A study published in BMC Public Health found a correlation between tattoo ink exposure and increased risk of certain skin cancers (squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, melanoma) and lymphoma. While the study observed this association, it did not establish a causal link. Further research is needed to determine the exact mechanisms and confirm if tattoo inks directly contribute to these conditions. The study analyzed data from a large US health survey and found that individuals with tattoos reported higher rates of these cancers and lymphoma compared to those without tattoos. However, the researchers acknowledge potential confounding factors like sun exposure, skin type, and other lifestyle choices which could influence the results.
Researchers at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute have developed a promising new experimental cancer treatment using modified CAR T cells. Pre-clinical testing in mice showed the treatment successfully eliminated solid tumors and prevented their recurrence without the severe side effects typically associated with CAR T cell therapy. This breakthrough paves the way for human clinical trials, offering potential hope for a safer and more effective treatment option against solid cancers.
HN commenters express cautious optimism about the pre-clinical trial results of a new cancer treatment targeting the MCL-1 protein. Several highlight the difficulty of translating promising pre-clinical findings into effective human therapies, citing the complex and often unpredictable nature of cancer. Some question the specificity of the treatment and its potential for side effects given MCL-1's role in healthy cells. Others discuss the funding and development process for new cancer drugs, emphasizing the lengthy and expensive road to clinical trials and eventual approval. A few commenters share personal experiences with cancer and express hope for new treatment options. Overall, the sentiment is one of tempered excitement, acknowledging the early stage of the research while recognizing the potential significance of the findings.
Eighteen years after receiving an experimental CAR T-cell therapy for neuroblastoma as a child, Emily Whitehead remains cancer-free. This marks a significant milestone for the innovative treatment, which genetically modifies a patient's own immune cells to target and destroy cancer cells. Her sustained remission offers long-term evidence of the potential for CAR T-cell therapy to cure cancers, particularly in children, and highlights the enduring impact of this groundbreaking medical advancement.
HN commenters express cautious optimism about the woman's remission after 18 years, emphasizing that it's one case and doesn't guarantee a cure for neuroblastoma. Some discuss the broader potential of CAR T-cell therapy, while acknowledging its current limitations like cost and severe side effects. A few highlight the grueling nature of the treatment and the importance of continued research and improvement. One commenter points out that the original clinical trial had only three participants, further underscoring the need for larger studies to confirm the efficacy of this approach. Several users express hope that the technology becomes more accessible and affordable in the future.
Researchers have developed a simple, inexpensive blood test that can detect pancreatic cancer at its earliest stages, even before it spreads. The test identifies a specific protein shed by pancreatic tumors, enabling earlier diagnosis and potentially significantly improving patient survival rates. Currently, pancreatic cancer is often diagnosed late, when treatment options are limited and prognosis is poor. This new blood test offers hope for earlier intervention and improved outcomes for this deadly disease.
Hacker News users discuss the limitations of the described blood test for early pancreatic cancer detection. Several point out the extremely low incidence of pancreatic cancer, which, combined with the reported 95% specificity, would lead to a high false positive rate, causing unnecessary anxiety and invasive follow-up procedures for many. Some question the study's small sample size and the lack of information about how the test performs on diverse populations. Others express cautious optimism, acknowledging the need for further research and larger trials, while still recognizing the potential benefit of early detection for this aggressive cancer. The cost-effectiveness of widespread screening with this test is also debated, with users noting the potential strain on healthcare resources due to the anticipated high number of false positives.
Summary of Comments ( 34 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43255108
HN commenters discuss the small sample size (n=407) and the lack of control for confounding factors like socioeconomic status, sun exposure, and risky behaviors often associated with tattoos. Several express skepticism about the causal link between tattoo ink and cancer, suggesting correlation doesn't equal causation. One commenter points out that the study relies on self-reporting, which can be unreliable. Another highlights the difficulty in isolating the effects of the ink itself versus other factors related to the tattooing process, such as hygiene practices or the introduction of foreign substances into the skin. The lack of detail about the types of ink used is also criticized, as different inks contain different chemicals with varying potential risks. Overall, the consensus leans towards cautious interpretation of the study's findings due to its limitations.
The Hacker News post titled "Tattoo ink exposure is associated with lymphoma and skin cancers," linking to a study published in BMC Public Health, has generated several comments discussing the study's findings and methodology.
Several commenters express skepticism about the study's conclusions, pointing to its correlational nature. One commenter highlights the difficulty in establishing causality from observational studies like this one, suggesting that other factors correlated with having tattoos, like socioeconomic status or lifestyle choices, could be the actual drivers of the observed cancer risk. They emphasize the need for more robust, controlled studies to confirm any causal link. Another commenter echoes this sentiment, noting the numerous potential confounding variables, such as sun exposure, alcohol consumption, and smoking, that could be more directly related to cancer risk than the tattoo ink itself.
Some commenters question the study's methodology, including the reliance on self-reported data about tattoos and potential recall bias. One comment specifically mentions the potential for misclassification of benign skin lesions as cancerous, especially given the study's reliance on participant reporting rather than biopsies. Another commenter questions the statistical significance of the findings, given the relatively small sample size and the multiple comparisons made in the study.
A few commenters discuss the chemical composition of tattoo inks and the potential for certain ingredients to be carcinogenic. One points out that tattoo ink regulations vary significantly across countries, and some inks may contain heavy metals or other harmful substances. They suggest that future research should focus on analyzing the specific components of different ink brands and their potential long-term health effects.
Others raise the point that the absolute risk increase associated with tattoos, even if the correlation is real, appears to be relatively small. One commenter argues that the potential benefits of self-expression through tattoos likely outweigh the minimal increased cancer risk suggested by the study.
Finally, some comments offer anecdotal evidence, sharing personal experiences with tattoos and any subsequent health issues, though these are presented as individual observations and not scientific evidence.
Overall, the comments reflect a healthy dose of skepticism about the study's findings, emphasizing the need for further research to establish a definitive causal link between tattoo ink and cancer. Many commenters highlight the importance of considering confounding factors and methodological limitations when interpreting the results of observational studies.