Women's health

India has more of the most-difficult-to-treat breast cancer than western countries

And this may be why many more women die of the disease in the subcontinent.

Breast cancer is the leading cause among cancer deaths in India. Indian women are getting breast cancer at younger ages and more are dying of the disease than in other parts of the world.

For example, approximately 145,000 new cases of breast cancer were diagnosed in India in 2012 and nearly 70,000 women died from the disease. The survival rate over five years for women diagnosed with breast cancer is a poor 60% in India compared to more than 80% in western countries.

Oncologists have pointed to both the lack of awareness and the difficulty in treating late stage breast cancer for the unfortunate trend. But, there may be yet another factor. A new analysis of cancer literature from India shows that there is a higher rate of the most aggressive type of breast cancer, the triple negative breast cancer or TNBC, among Indian women than in other parts of the world.

Three kinds of breast cancer

Breast cancer cells typically have receptors for hormones like estrogen or progesterone or the human epidermal growth factor HER2. Oncologists prescribe anti-hormone treatments for hormone receptor cancers and drugs like trastuzumab for HER2 receptor tumors, often with good results.

Triple negative breast cancer cells lack receptors for all three. Hence the name. This makes this form of cancer resistant to conventional medicines and harder to treat, though certain types of chemotherapy have been shown to work against such tumors.

The new study by published by scientists from medical centers at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Kentucky in the United States is a detailed examination of 17 breast cancer studies conducted between 1999 and 2015 in different regions of India. Published in the Journal of Global Oncology, the study shows that among more than 7,200 patients whose average age was 50 years, prevalence of TNBC was 31%. TNBC accounts for only about 12%-17% of all invasive breast cancers in Caucasian populations.

In fact, the rate of TNBC in India is comparable to the prevalence seen in African American women and is more than twice, sometimes thrice, the prevalence in other ethnic groups.

The combination of a high mortality due to breast cancer and the high prevalence of triple negative breast cancer is a double whammy in India, explained Aju Mathew of the Markey Cancer Center at the University of Kentucky and senior author of this study.

If a person is diagnosed early with breast cancer that is either hormone or HER2 receptor positive, the chance of the person surviving five years is about 90%. If a person is diagnosed with metastatic or Stage 4 cancer of these two varieties, the chances of that person surviving after five years is greater than 30%.

However, these survival rates drop drastically for triple negative breast cancer. Caught early, a patient has a 60% chance of surviving five years.

“If a patient is diagnosed with metastatic or Stage 4 triple negative breast cancer today, there is very little chance that the person will be alive in five years,” said Mathew.

Why do Indians have more TNBC?

The study’s authors attach several possible reasons for the this high rate of triple negative breast cancer among Indians from lifestyle factors like diet and obesity, to reproductive factors like having more than two children as well as socioeconomic factors that delay screening and treatment. However, there are indications of a genetic predisposition to TNBC among Indians.

“The next step is to do studies with patients diagnosed with triple negative breast cancers to see if these patient have some common genetic pattern or mutation that place them at a higher risk of getting triple negative breast cancer,” said Mathew.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.