Fibrosarcomas- The Myth Dissolved

Cheryl wrote:

In the fine newsgroup "rec.pets.cats.health+behav", "Karen"
artfully composed this message within
on 29 Jun 2004:

So in english what does this mean?

Apparently there is some argument about whether specific
manufacturers make vaccinations that are more likely than others to
cause fibrosarcomas. I guess they tested other injectable
medications and found incidents of those also associated with
sarcomas. None of it left me with a warm fuzzy.

Most of what I got out of it was the last paragraph (but I didn't
understand the design and procedure sections fully):

CONCLUSIONS
AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings do not support the hypotheses
that specific brands or types of vaccine within antigen class,
vaccine practices such as reuse of syringes, concomitant viral
infection, history of trauma, or residence either increase or
decrease the risk of vaccine-associated sarcoma formation in
cats. There was evidence to suggest that certain long-acting
injectable medications may also be associated with sarcoma
formation.

I read about this in either Catnip or Ca****ch, I forget which. The study was
looking for a relationship between types and brands of vaccines and their
administration, and the development of fibrosarcomas. They did not find
evidence of correlation other than perhaps temperature of the vaccine (if I
recall). Interestingly, they found incidences of sarcomas with other injectable
medications such as prednisone, so this brings into question whether it is the
vaccines themselves or some aspect of any long-term injected medication that
may induce a fibrosarcoma.

"Karen" wrote in message ...
So in english what does this mean?


In essence, and going more in detail than the abstract.

The researchers assembled information on close to 2000 cats over a
couple of years. All of the cats in the study had formed some sort of
sarcoma. There were 4 factors that were looked at in terms of a
relationship with possibly causing sarcomas- the manufacturer of the
vaccine, the type of vaccine (FVRCP, rabies, FeLV), multi or single
dose vials, and adjuvanted or non-adjuvanted. All of these factors
were monitored over different time periods. In all 4 factors,
absolutely no relationship was found between the factor and the
sarcoma formation. For FeLV vaccines, non-advuanted vs. adjuvanted,
the P values were 1.00. Recall high school statistics for a second- a
P value of less that 0.05 indicates that the similarities have a
greater than 95% chance of being tied to eachother in some way.
Conversely, a P value of 1.00 means that there is 0% chance that the
factors are significant to eachother.

The researchers did find data that indicated that the temperature of
the vaccine when it was given played a role in sarcoma formation. They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.

So in a nutshell- this study shows that none of manufacturer,type of
vaccine, type of dosing, or adjuvant content plays a role in
fibrosarcoma development in cats. Interesting find for sure.


"Osiris Virus" wrote in message
om...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14621215

***

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Nov 1;223(9):1283-92.


Multicenter case-control study of risk factors associated with
development of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats.

Kass PH, Spangler WL, Hendrick MJ, McGill LD, Esplin DG, Lester S,
Slater M, Meyer EK, Boucher F, Peters EM, Gobar GG, Htoo T, Decile K.

Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary
Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether particular vaccine brands, other
injectable medications, customary vaccination practices, or various
host factors were associated with the formation of vaccine-associated
sarcomas in cats. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter case-control study.
ANIMALS: Cats in the United States and Canada with soft tissue
sarcomas or basal cell tumors. PROCEDU Veterinarians submitting
biopsy specimens from cats with a confirmed diagnosis of soft tissue
sarcoma or basal cell tumor were contacted for patient medical
history. Time window statistical analyses were used in conjunction
with various assumptions about case definitions. RESULTS: No single
vaccine brand or manufacturer within antigen class was found to be
associated with sarcoma formation. Factors related to vaccine
administration were also not associated with sarcoma development, with
the possible exception of vaccine temperature prior to injection. Two
injectable medications (long-acting penicillin and methyl prednisolone
acetate) were administered to case cats more frequently than to
control cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings do not
support the hypotheses that specific brands or types of vaccine within
antigen class, vaccine practices such as reuse of syringes,
concomitant viral infection, history of trauma, or residence either
increase or decrease the risk of vaccine-associated sarcoma formation
in cats. There was evidence to suggest that certain long-acting
injectable medications may also be associated with sarcoma formation.

Publication Types:
Multicenter Study

PMID: 14621215 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

"Karen" wrote in message ...
So in english what does this mean?


In essence, and going more in detail than the abstract.

The researchers assembled information on close to 2000 cats over a
couple of years. All of the cats in the study had formed some sort of
sarcoma. There were 4 factors that were looked at in terms of a
relationship with possibly causing sarcomas- the manufacturer of the
vaccine, the type of vaccine (FVRCP, rabies, FeLV), multi or single
dose vials, and adjuvanted or non-adjuvanted. All of these factors
were monitored over different time periods. In all 4 factors,
absolutely no relationship was found between the factor and the
sarcoma formation. For FeLV vaccines, non-advuanted vs. adjuvanted,
the P values were 1.00. Recall high school statistics for a second- a
P value of less that 0.05 indicates that the similarities have a
greater than 95% chance of being tied to eachother in some way.
Conversely, a P value of 1.00 means that there is 0% chance that the
factors are significant to eachother.

The researchers did find data that indicated that the temperature of
the vaccine when it was given played a role in sarcoma formation. They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.

So in a nutshell- this study shows that none of manufacturer,type of
vaccine, type of dosing, or adjuvant content plays a role in
fibrosarcoma development in cats. Interesting find for sure.


"Osiris Virus" wrote in message
om...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14621215

***

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Nov 1;223(9):1283-92.


Multicenter case-control study of risk factors associated with
development of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats.

Kass PH, Spangler WL, Hendrick MJ, McGill LD, Esplin DG, Lester S,
Slater M, Meyer EK, Boucher F, Peters EM, Gobar GG, Htoo T, Decile K.

Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary
Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether particular vaccine brands, other
injectable medications, customary vaccination practices, or various
host factors were associated with the formation of vaccine-associated
sarcomas in cats. DESIGN: Prospective multicenter case-control study.
ANIMALS: Cats in the United States and Canada with soft tissue
sarcomas or basal cell tumors. PROCEDU Veterinarians submitting
biopsy specimens from cats with a confirmed diagnosis of soft tissue
sarcoma or basal cell tumor were contacted for patient medical
history. Time window statistical analyses were used in conjunction
with various assumptions about case definitions. RESULTS: No single
vaccine brand or manufacturer within antigen class was found to be
associated with sarcoma formation. Factors related to vaccine
administration were also not associated with sarcoma development, with
the possible exception of vaccine temperature prior to injection. Two
injectable medications (long-acting penicillin and methyl prednisolone
acetate) were administered to case cats more frequently than to
control cats. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Findings do not
support the hypotheses that specific brands or types of vaccine within
antigen class, vaccine practices such as reuse of syringes,
concomitant viral infection, history of trauma, or residence either
increase or decrease the risk of vaccine-associated sarcoma formation
in cats. There was evidence to suggest that certain long-acting
injectable medications may also be associated with sarcoma formation.

Publication Types:
Multicenter Study

PMID: 14621215 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

In the fine newsgroup "rec.pets.cats.health+behav",
(Osiris Virus) artfully composed this message
within . com on 29
Jun 2004:

They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

--
Cheryl

In the fine newsgroup "rec.pets.cats.health+behav",
(Osiris Virus) artfully composed this message
within . com on 29
Jun 2004:

They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

--
Cheryl

(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
(-L. wrote in message . com...
(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14621215

***

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Nov 1;223(9):1283-92.


snip

I wonder what vaccine manufacturer funded this study, LOL...

Actually, the study was supported by the Vaccine Associate Feline
Sarcoma Task Force, the DuBee Cancer Fund, the George and Phyllis
Miller Feline Health Fund, the Center for Companion Animal Health, and
UC Davis. No outside manufacturer was a part of this.

It's important to note that one of the original proponents of the
theory that sarcomas were caused by adjuvants, or vaccines for that
matter, was Dr. Kass. Now, 10 years later, he has performed a study
which refutes his previous conclusion.

As far as opportunism regarding vaccine manufacturers, it is a moot
point right now, as there are currently NO non-adjuvanted FeLV
vaccines on the market, now that Merial has taken Purevax Leucat away.
Of the major companies, Schering-Plough has Fevaxyn (aqueous based
adjuvant), Fort Dodge has Felovax LVK (dual oil adjuvant), and Pfizer
has Leukocell 2 (aluminum hydroxide adjuvant).


Thanks for the info.

-L.

(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
(-L. wrote in message . com...
(Osiris Virus) wrote in message . com...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=14621215

***

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2003 Nov 1;223(9):1283-92.


snip

I wonder what vaccine manufacturer funded this study, LOL...

Actually, the study was supported by the Vaccine Associate Feline
Sarcoma Task Force, the DuBee Cancer Fund, the George and Phyllis
Miller Feline Health Fund, the Center for Companion Animal Health, and
UC Davis. No outside manufacturer was a part of this.

It's important to note that one of the original proponents of the
theory that sarcomas were caused by adjuvants, or vaccines for that
matter, was Dr. Kass. Now, 10 years later, he has performed a study
which refutes his previous conclusion.

As far as opportunism regarding vaccine manufacturers, it is a moot
point right now, as there are currently NO non-adjuvanted FeLV
vaccines on the market, now that Merial has taken Purevax Leucat away.
Of the major companies, Schering-Plough has Fevaxyn (aqueous based
adjuvant), Fort Dodge has Felovax LVK (dual oil adjuvant), and Pfizer
has Leukocell 2 (aluminum hydroxide adjuvant).


Thanks for the info.

-L.

Cheryl wrote in message ...
In the fine newsgroup "rec.pets.cats.health+behav",
(Osiris Virus) artfully composed this message
within . com on 29
Jun 2004:

They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

Let me put it this way- if given a choice, I'd continue your
treatment. The correlation is hinted at, not decided. It appears to be
more of a genetic predisposition than anything else.

Cheryl wrote in message ...
In the fine newsgroup "rec.pets.cats.health+behav",
(Osiris Virus) artfully composed this message
within . com on 29
Jun 2004:

They
also found that long acting injections might have a role in sarcoma
formation.


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

Let me put it this way- if given a choice, I'd continue your
treatment. The correlation is hinted at, not decided. It appears to be
more of a genetic predisposition than anything else.

From: Cheryl


An example of long-acting could be depo medrol, couldn't it. sigh

Here's an abstract of the study. Although it does mention prednisolone
acetate, as the OP mentioned, it's believed that VAS may be a genetic
predisposition:

http://www.geocities.com/~kremersark/javma_11_2003.html

and also: http://www.kittyvillage.org/articles.html

A really good site about VAS is www.catshots.com
Lauren
________
See my cats: http://community.webshots.com/album/56955940rWhxAe
Raw Diet Info: http://www.holisticat.com/drjletter.html
http://www.geocities.com/rawfeeders/ForCatsOnly.html
Declawing Info: http://www.wholecat.com/articles/claws.htm