Are rich people at greater genetic risk for cancer? What the experts say

It turns out that wealth can’t buy good health.

A new, large study out of Finland suggests that people with good jobs have a greater genetic risk for cancer, especially breast and prostate cancer. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people struggling with poverty are more likely to have higher rates of cancer.

For this study, genetic, health, and socioeconomic information (defined as educational attainment and occupation, not income) from 280,000 adults over age 35 were used to estimate risks for 19 diseases. The researchers collected data from a Finnish genomics project that analyzes biobank and national registry data.

They found that less educated people have a greater genetic susceptibility to developing rheumatoid arthritis, lung cancer, depression, alcoholism and type 2 diabetes, while those who are more educated are at greater risk for lung cancer. breast and prostate.

The study was presented last month at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics.

What sets this analysis apart is its focus on genetics, not just lifestyle or environmental factors.

Researchers have long said that low-income people bear a disproportionate burden of cancer, in part, because they are more likely to be uninsured and face limited access to prevention, screening and treatment services.

Dr. Fiona Hagenbeek said her research points to a link between socioeconomic status, genetics and cancer incidence, but she has not formally investigated it.

She hypothesized to The Post that people with more means have better access to health care, including screenings, greater health literacy and are less likely to engage in risky behaviors such as smoking and alcohol abuse. Age is also a factor.

“The higher incidence of cancer among individuals of high socioeconomic status may reflect that these individuals did not die of another cause at a younger age and became old enough to develop cancer,” he said. Hagenbeek to The Post in an email Friday.

On her part, Dr. Jiyoung Ahn — professor and associate director for population science at the NYU Perlmutter Cancer Center at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine — believes that screening behavior is key to this research.

“It’s been proven that if you have a higher socioeconomic status, you’re more likely to be checked,” Ahn told The Post.

Dr. Elisa Port, chief of breast surgery for Mount Sinai Health System, was also curious about the participants’ screening practices.

“The breast and the prostate are like that [of cancer] that, if you’re doing more screening, the more you look, the more you find,” Port told The Post.

The American Cancer Society estimates that more than 310,000 American women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer this year, and there will be about 300,000 new cases of prostate cancer.

A new ACS study finds that many cases of cancer — including tens of thousands of breast cancer cases each year — are likely preventable with lifestyle changes.

While a woman cannot change her genetics, family history, or the age at which she starts menstruating or goes through menopause, there are some measures she can take to lower her risk of breast cancer.

Port advises maintaining a healthy body weight and curbing alcohol use – keeping your head down is best. She noted that women undergoing hormone replacement therapy during menopause also face a slightly higher risk.

Screening can help detect cancer early, when it is easier to treat. The US Preventive Services Task Force suggests that men 55 to 69 years of age consider screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen blood test.

The USPSTF recommends that women ages 40 to 74 who are at average risk for breast cancer get a mammogram every other year, although some experts advise getting screened annually to increase the chances of early detection.

In a statement accompanying her research, Hagenbeek proposes that women at high genetic risk who are highly educated receive earlier or more frequent breast cancer screenings than women with less genetic risk or education.

Meanwhile, Ahn said it would be “really interesting to see if these findings replicate in the US.”