It turns out that wealth may not 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 cancers. 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 (defined as educational achievement and occupation, not income) information from 280,000 adults over 35 was used to assess the risks for 19 diseases. The researchers collected the data from a Finnish genomic project that analyzes biobank and national registry records.
They found that less-educated people have a greater genetic susceptibility to developing rheumatoid arthritis, lung cancer, depression, alcoholism and Type 2 diabetes, whereas those who are better educated are at greater risk for breast and prostate cancers.
The study was presented last month at the annual conference of the European Society of Human Genetics.
What sets this analysis apart is the focus on genetics, not just lifestyle or environmental factors.
Researchers have long said that low-income people shoulder an unequal cancer burden, 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 highlights 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 behavior like smoking and alcohol abuse. Age is also a factor.
“The higher cancer incidence among individuals with high socioeconomic status might reflect that these individuals haven’t died from another cause at a younger age and became old enough to develop cancer,” Hagenbeek told The Post in an email Friday.
For 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 screening behavior is key to this research.
“It is well-established that if you have higher socioeconomic status, you are more likely to get screened,” Ahn told The Post.
Dr. Elisa Port, chief of breast surgery for the Mount Sinai Health System, was also curious about participant screening practices.
“Breast and prostate are the kinds [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 (ACS) estimates that more than 310,000 US women will be diagnosed with invasive breast cancer this year, and there will be nearly 300,000 new cases of prostate cancer.
A new ACS study finds that many cancer cases — including tens of thousands of incidences of breast cancer each year — likely could be prevented with lifestyle changes.
While a woman can’t change her genetics, family history or the age she starts menstruating or goes through menopause, there are some measures she can take to lower her breast cancer risk.
Port advises maintaining a healthy body weight and curbing alcohol use — teetotaling is best. She noted that women who undergo hormone replacement therapy during menopause face a slightly higher risk as well.
Screening can help detect cancer early, when it’s easier to treat. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) suggests men 55 to 69 consider getting screened for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen blood test.
The USPSTF recommends women 40 to 74 who are at average risk for breast cancer get a mammogram every other year.
In a statement accompanying her research, Hagenbeek proposes women with high genetic risk, who are highly educated, receive earlier or more frequent screening for breast cancer than women with less genetic risk or education.
In the meantime, Ahn said it would be “really interesting to see if these findings are replicated in the US.”
