Sleep Apnea Tied to Increased Cancer Risk

The New York Times
Sleep Apnea Tied to Increased Cancer Risk
By ANAHAD O'CONNOR | May 20, 2012, 5:01 PM

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/2 ... ncer-risk/

People with moderate apnea were found to die of cancer at a rate double that of people without disordered breathing at night, while those in the severe category died at a rate 4.8 times that of those without the sleep disorder.

About 5,200 people were followed for seven years, none of whom had a cancer diagnosis when the study began. The researchers found that the greater the extent of hypoxemia, or oxygen depletion, during sleep, the more likely a person would receive a cancer diagnosis during the study period.

Just one more reason to use cpap, though they haven't yet said if it makes a difference (can't imagine that it wouldn't).

I found this article kind of disturbing. Prior to reading it, I honestly had no desire to hook up a pulse oximeter while I slept. Now, I can definitely see the value in that. Because really even while being treated with CPAP, your oxygen levels are still going to dip during apeneas and hypopneas.

This question is for those that monitor ther oxygen saturation with a pulse oximeter--
Your lowest oxygen saturation--- is it better with CPAP than it was during your sleep study? My gut says that they are probalby in the same range since CPAp doesn't prevent all apneas/hypopneas... but probably the least severe.

fumbling34 wrote:This question is for those that monitor ther oxygen saturation with a pulse oximeter--
Your lowest oxygen saturation--- is it better with CPAP than it was during your sleep study? My gut says that they are probalby in the same range since CPAp doesn't prevent all apneas/hypopneas... but probably the least severe.

73% desats during sleep study. While using cpap rarely drops below 95% and then only barely. I don't monitor O2 often because not much happens and it is boring. While cpap may not prevent all apneas I think it takes more than an occasional event here and there to cause a significant drop in oxygen. During my sleep study I had a lot of 45 second long apneas and now only occasional 20 second event and rarely anything any longer than that.

So without cpap I have a bunch of 45 second apneas back to back and yeah...oxygen will drop but even if I hold my breath now for a 45 second long "event" my oxygen level doesn't really drop. In other words it takes multiple events fairly close together to cause a drop and with using the machine the chance for multiple events happening really close together are significantly lessened. So number of events as well as duration is going to factor into things.

The Spanish study looked at the length of time oxygen was below 90% and found that was correlated with incidence of cancer. Neither study looked at the effect of CPAP, but the article speculates that it would reduce the risk. Would make sense because the time spent with lower oxygen should be less with effective control of apneas.

One more reason for me to persist and try to get adjusted to this!

gertrude wrote:One more reason for me to persist and try to get adjusted to this!

I agree... I'm still adjusting. It's scary to read what Nate posted, so I have to continue looking for that "sweet spot" many of you guys talk about. So far, it still has eluded me. Just when I think one bed pillow is great, the next nite it's not great and I'm on to another pillow. One nite my mask is comfortable, the next nite I can't seem to find that "spot" again. A never ending situation it seems...

It makes sense, when an acquaintance had a broken leg, the fact he smoked DOUBLED his recovery time.
It could have been either the lowered oxygen availability or the inflammation already in his system;
--all of which is similar to the effect of untreated apnea.

Nates, I am surprised that someone at your caliber would point to such flimsy statistics.

avi123 wrote:Nates, I am surprised that someone at your caliber would point to such flimsy statistics.

This was an article in the NY Times, some other place that I can't remember now, and on a news station. You are correct... someone of Nate's caliber wouldn't mention flimsy statistics.

avi123 wrote:Nates, I am surprised that someone at your caliber would point to such flimsy statistics.

What part did you find flimsy?

Nate

NateS wrote:

avi123 wrote:Nates, I am surprised that someone at your caliber would point to such flimsy statistics.

What part did you find flimsy?

Nate

What does not have a cancer risk? Even kissing has this risk if the person that you kiss has .........So how could they prove
that a person did not get the cancer from something else? Same story with smokers and the risk of getting cancer.

Sorry - I smell money...........

One only has to think back when Lipitor first hit the shelves and how the objectives changed. They kept lowering the desired levels of LDL so they could possibly get the whole world on their station drug.

Science said eggs were bad - especially the yolk - now eggs are the "perfect food." Caffeine was bad for you and now some is delightful.

Someone other than I smells $$$$ in this new revelation.

Until this year I never heard my cardio mention OSA - now every one in the group is ordering sleep studies. And on and on and on.....

It is always risky to draw such conclusions about how one variable may influence the other, since in these studies they are just doing observations and not scientific experiments.

For instance if I told you that the "risk" of getting married if you wear a white dress or a nice suit during the weekends is much higher than if you wear a T-Shirt, you would not believe me. But hey, look at the figures, there is a clear correlation

After reading the article, however, I have to say that those correlations, if they are real, are indeed quite disturbing, especially because the number of people they report are not small. This deserves more research.

Anyway, the final comment “Not breathing while you’re sleeping is a serious problem” says it all. I will for sure continue to plug the hose!

user from Singapore wrote:I have to say that those correlations, if they are real, are indeed quite disturbing, especially because the number of people they report are not small. This deserves more research.

I haven't read the story in detail, but what I did read suggested that there is just an association. Did they monitor people who did not have sleep apnea? For a population study, 5200 people is not a large group, especially if the number who actually develop cancer is small. Absolutely agree that this deserves more research. However, to do proper research in this area is going to be expensive, and take a long time. If anyone/any group has the time and resources to do this work, it will be very interesting. Meantime I will accept the research that has shown that hypoxia is associated with inflammation, and the research that shows that inflammation is associated with many illnesses - cancer, arthritis, obesity, diabetes, etc., and continue to work on keeping my AHI as low as possible. Until someone develops a better and safer method of eliminating sleep apnea, I think my CPAP is a wonderful thing!

avi123 wrote:

NateS wrote:

avi123 wrote:Nates, I am surprised that someone at your caliber would point to such flimsy statistics.

What part did you find flimsy?

Nate

What does not have a cancer risk? Even kissing has this risk if the person that you kiss has .........So how could they prove
that a person did not get the cancer from something else? Same story with smokers and the risk of getting cancer.

You are saying that you are also not satisfied with the studies demonstrating that smoking causes lung cancer?

Evidence for Smoking Causing Lung Cancer
http://www.wsiat.on.ca/tracITDocuments/ ... moking.pdf

Then I take it that you will find all studies and statistics on every subject to be flimsy.

Believe what you will, my friend.

Respectfully,

Nate