Non-intrinsic cancer risk factors

Yıldırım-Kahrıman S.*

Summary. Our knowledge about the etiology of cancer is increasing. Many studies show that non-intrinsic factors such as environment or lifestyle are the main risk factors for the occurrence of cancer. On the other hand, there are studies showing that the main risk factors in the occurrence of cancer are caused by DNA replication errors (known as the intrinsic factors). This view limits highly the possibility of protection from cancer. However, the findings obtained from the literature show that non-intrinsic factors contribute substantially to cancer risk and that cancer should be considered as a preventable disease. This review is aimed to examine the factors known as non-intrinsic cancer risk factors in the light of recent research.Key Words: cancer, non-intrinsic risk factors, cancer prevention.

DOI: 10.32471/exp-oncology.2312-8852.vol-43-no-4.16804

Submitted: September 28, 2020
*Correspondence: E-mail:;
Abbreviations used: CT — computed tomography; ELF — extremely low frequency; IARC — International Agency for Research on Cancer; IL – interleukin; HPV — human papilloma virus; RF – radio frequency; UVR – ultraviolet radiation; WHO — World Health Organization.


The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organization (WHO), estimates that 18.1 million people were diagnosed with cancer in the world in 2018 and 9.6 million died due to cancer [1]. According to the estimates of the WHO in 2015, in the deaths seen before the age of 70, cancer takes the first or second place in 91 of 172 countries and occupies the third or fourth place in 22 countries. Cancer is a disease whose incidence and mortality increase rapidly all over the world. It can be said that the most important factors that lead to this situation are the prolongation of life expectancy and the increase in the frequency of being affected by risk factors, many of which are related to socioeconomic development [2].

Cancer incidences differ among different populations around the world. If environmental and/or behavioral factors responsible for these differences can be identified and changed, it can be thought that cancer is largely preventable [3].

The main and specific causes of some cancers are known, for example, smoking in lung cancer, sunlight in skin cancer, human papilloma virus infection in cervical cancer, Helicobacter pylori infection in gastric cancer and viral hepatitis in hepatocellular carcinoma. However, the causes of some other common cancers such as prostate and colorectal cancer are not yet fully understood [3, 4].

It is possible to examine the main risk factors that play a role in the emergence of cancer in two categories as intrinsic and non-intrinsic factors. Unmodifiable intrinsic factors are DNA replication errors that occur spontaneously in the cell. Non-intrinsic factors are modifiable exogenous factors and partially modifiable endogenous factors associated with individual characteristics [4]. Exogenous factors can be listed under the headings of tobacco and tobacco products use, diet-related factors, radiation, medical carcinogens, occupational carcinogens and environmental pollution. Endogenous factors can be summarized as infections, reproductive and hormonal factors and genetic susceptibility. In this review, the non-intrinsic risk factors listed above will be examined one by one.


Tobacco and cancer

Tobacco use, which is considered to be the most preventable factor in cancer disease, is held responsible for one third of cancer deaths each year [5]. The most common use of tobacco is smoking, but it is also consumed in the form of pipes, cigars or hookahs. Smoking is the single most important risk factor in the development of lung cancer. The diagnosis of lung cancer is rare in a non-smoker. Cancer of the larynx, mouth, pharynx, esophagus, pancreas, urinary bladder and kidney, besides lung cancer, are known to be associated with smoking. In addition, stomach, liver, cervix, nasal cavity and myeloid leukemias are also associated with smoking. Avoiding smoking means preventing 15 different cancers [6].

Cigarette has a highly complex chemical content of over 8700 identified ingredients [7]. It contains carcinogenic substances that belong to different chemical groups such as non-polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, N-nitrosamines, aromatic amines, aldehydes, volatile organic hydrocarbons and metals. Most carcinogens in cigarettes are transformed in the cell by the catalysis of the cytochrome P-450 enzyme, thus being able to bind to DNA and creating new DNA adducts. These events are called metabolic activation processes. This process in the cell competes with the metabolic detoxification process. In metabolic detoxification, carcinogens in cigarettes are converted to harmless metabolites by the catalysis of glutathione-S-transferase, uridine-5-diphosphate glucuronacyltransferase, apoxide hydrolase and sulfatases. The balance between metabolic activation and metabolic detoxification varies between individuals, and this balance is likely to play a role in the development of cancer susceptibility. People with higher activation and lower detoxification capacity are more likely to develop a cigarette related cancer disease. These findings are supported by molecular epidemiological studies investigating enzyme polymorphism [8]. Some carcinogens in cigarettes can directly form DNA adducts without metabolic activation process. There are also repair mechanisms in the cells that eliminate these DNA adducts and maintain the normal DNA structure. However, if repair mechanisms are not working properly, somatic mutations are likely to occur and this can lead to cancer development. Persistent DNA adducts can cause false coding during DNA replication. Such mutations are observed in lung cancer, especially KRAS oncogene, and in some other types of cancer, TP53 gene. Gene mutations can lead to loss of normal functions that control cell growth, resulting in increased cell proliferation and cancer [9].

Smoking cessation is the only proven strategy to prevent the pathogenic process of cancer development.

Dietary factors that contribute to cancer

Dietary habits play a key role in increasing or decreasing the risk of cancer. The possible role of the diet in the etiology of cancer emerged in the 1970s, with the understanding that the rates of colorectal, breast and prostate cancer were high in western countries that consume more animal products, oil and sugar. In contrast, developing countries that consume low animal food, fat and sugar have a low incidence of these cancers. These observations partially explain the different rates of cancer seen in populations with different diets. For example, the incidence of colorectal cancer is lower in the African population that consumes high fiber in their diets [10]. Stomach cancer is more common in East Asia, where salty foods are consumed more [11].

Obesity and cancer. Epidemiological studies show that overweight and obesity, a growing epidemic in many countries, are associated with an increased risk of cancer. There are studies showing a worse prognosis and higher mortality rate in obese cancer patients [12]. Postmenopausal breast cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian, prostate, colorectal, renal, pancreas, liver, gallbladder cancers and esophageal adenocarcinoma are cancers associated with obesity [13].

While obesity is an important factor leading to cancer, reduced food consumption has a protective effect against cancer. Energy restriction has been shown to reduce the occurrence of spontaneous tumors in laboratory mice [14]. Energy limitation inhibited the emergence of induced breast tumor in mice and suppressed the growth of implanted tumors [15, 16]. Breast cancer incidence decreased by 23% in hospitalized women due to anorexia nervosa [17].

Although the metabolic disorder caused by obesity is considered as a risk factor for cancer, the underlying biological mechanism has not yet been fully understood. Epidemiological, clinical and preclinical studies suggest that the proinflammatory microenvironment associated with obesity interacts with adipose tissue (adipocytes, macrophages and other cells in adipose tissue), and cancer-prone cells may be formed by the effect of obesity-related hormones, cytokines and other mediators. In vitro and in vivo preclinical studies show that some factors such as originating from adipose tissue some cytokines (interleukin (IL)-6), IL-8), monocyte chemotactic protein 1, tumor necrosis factor-α and macrophages can affect cell metabolism and advance cancer. Inflammatory adipose tissue significantly increases the risk of cancer and can stimulate cell transformation, cell survival and proliferation, invasion, angiogenesis and metastasis [18].

Alcohol and cancer. Alcohol was previously considered a cancer-leading factor that did not cause cancer. However, more recent in vivo studies have shown that ethanol given to animals such as mice and rats develops tumors, and therefore alcohol is a direct carcinogen [19]. IARC has identified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen since 1988 [20]. Moderate or excessive alcohol consumption increases the risk of oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, stomach, larynx, colorectum, central nervous system, pancreas, breast and prostate cancer [21]. The mechanism of alcohol causing cancer has not been fully explained, but there are some defined mechanisms on the subject. These mechanisms involved are the genotoxic effects of acetaldehyde (the metabolic product of alcohol), alcohol’s revealing types of reactive oxygen, disrupting retinoid metabolism, raising the level of estrogen hormone and genetic polymorphisms [22].

Nutrients and cancer

Refined sugar. While examining the relationship of refined sugar and refined white flour products with cancer, glycemic index or Hemoglobin A1C levels are among the criteria that can be evaluated. High glycemic index has been found to be associated with upper respiratory tract, endometrium, stomach, ovarian and colorectal cancers. Similarly, high Hemoglobin A1C is associated with colorectal cancer. There are also some studies showing that there is a relationship between diabetes and colorectal cancer, endometrial cancer and pancreatic cancer [23, 24]. Sugar is thought to increase the risk of cancer by causing excess weight and obesity, and it does not have a direct oncogenic effect.

Low dietary fiber. Low dietary fiber is considered a risk factor for colorectal cancer [25, 26]. Dietary fiber is thought to have a protective effect against colorectal cancer by diluting fecal carcinogens, reducing colon transition time and turning into anticarcinogenic short-chain fatty acids [10].

Red meat. In 2015, IARC examined more than 800 epidemiological studies and classified red meat as “possible carcinogen” and processed red meat as “carcinogen” [27]. Meta-analysis studies have shown that excessive consumption of red meat and processed meat increases the risk of colorectal, lung, esophageal and gastric cancer and there is no relationship between consuming white meat and cancer risk [28]. In some processes, such as cooking, smoking or subjecting the meat to a high temperature, it is known that carcinogenic substances such as N-nitrous compounds, polycyclic aromatic amines and heterocyclic amines are formed in the meat. Possible mechanisms of red meat or processed meat in increasing the risk of cancer can be listed as (1) increased oxidative load forming DNA adducts and causing lipid peroxidation in the intestinal epithelium (2) proliferative stimulation of the intestinal epithelium through hem or epithelial transformation caused by nutrient metabolites (3) an increased inflammatory response that may trigger malignant change [29, 30].

Omega-6/omega-3 ratio and cancer. The high omega-6/omega-3 ratio in the body plays a role in the pathogenesis of some diseases such as cancer. The precursor of omega-3 fatty acid, alpha linoleic acid, is a molecule associated with the anti-inflammatory response. Linoleic acid, the precursor of omega-6 fatty acid, is associated with the pro-inflammatory response. It is thought that the rate of omega-3/omega-6 in the body is more important than the individual intake of omega-3 and omega-6 in cancer development. High omega-6 intake in western countries seems to be associated with many cancers. Omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids compete with each other at the level of activity of enzymes that promote the formation of factors that cause cancer. In addition, if the membranes of cancer cells are richer in unsaturated fatty acids and poorer in saturated fatty acids, omega-3 fatty acids make cancer cells sensitive to free radicals. This makes the cell membrane less stiff and more vulnerable. While omega-6 increases the survival by preventing the death of tumor cells, omega-3 fatty acids provide self-destruction of tumor cells. Omega-3 fatty acids suppress the production of prostaglandin E2, which is responsible for inflammatory response, cell growth, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastasis. There are in vitro and in vivo studies showing that omega-3 fatty acids make tumor cells more sensitive to anticancer drugs [31]. It can be thought that omega-3 fatty acids have anticancer effects by affecting multiple targets at different stages of cancer development such as cell proliferation and survival [32].

Salt consumption. There are epidemiological studies showing that high salt consumption is a risk factor for stomach cancer [33]. Some experimental studies show that salt increases the risk of stomach cancer by synergistic effect with Helicobacter pylori infection. High salt consumption facilitates the colonization of Helicobacter pylori in the gastric mucosa, promoting proliferation of mucosa cells where bacteria are colonized and reduces mucin secreted from the mucous gland cells that act against the infection caused by the bacteria [34, 35]. Salt has also been shown to have independent effects that increase endogenous mutations and cell proliferation in the gastric mucosa [36, 37].

Radiation and cancer

Ionizing radiation and cancer. Ionizing radiation can cause cancer in any tissue or organ, but red bone marrow, breast and thyroid are among the most sensitive tissues. The occurrence of cancer can occur 40 years after exposure to radiation, and exposure to radiation at a young age increases the risk [3]. Information on the carcinogenic effects of ionizing radiation is based on tracking atom bomb and nuclear accident survivors, epidemiological studies on those exposed to radiation from medical or environmental sources, experimental animal studies, and in vitro studies. Radon gas is the most important radiation exposure from environmental sources. It is formed as a result of the decaying Uranium into Radium. Radium is found in large quantities in soil, rocks and indirectly in some building materials. It is known that radon gas from radium causes a high rate of radioactive pollution in buildings. Radon gas accumulates in respiratory system organs and is considered to be an important factor causing lung cancer [38]. Ionizing radiation directly or indirectly damages the DNA molecule. Some of these damages lead to cell death while others make non-fatal modifications. Non-fatal modifications cannot be repaired or can be repaired incorrectly causing malignant changes [39].

Non-ionizing radiation and cancer. Non-ionizing radiation (ultraviolet radiation (UVR), visible light, infrared, microwave, radio frequency (RF), and extremely low frequency (ELF)) does not have the energy to break chemical bonds and ionize. UVR is accepted as the main factor leading to skin cancers (cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal-cell carcinoma, and squamous-cell carcinoma). Skin cancers are the most common types of cancer in light-skinned populations in the world. IARC classifies devices that emit UVR and UVR from sun (e.g. sunbeds) as Group 1 carcinogens [39, 40]. This classification is based on experimental and epidemiological studies. UVR can lead to pre-mutagenic lesions in DNA by direct absorption of light photon by DNA or by excitation of cellular chromophores that will affect DNA sequentially. Induction of DNA damage can also occur by absorption of UVR by endogenous (melanin, porphyrin, flavin groups) or exogenous (e.g. azathioprine, an immunosuppressive drug) photosensitizers. Photosensitizers lead to the generation of reactive oxygen species that lead to pre-mutagenic DNA lesions. In addition, UVR can cause damage to DNA by creating reactive nitrogen species, creating double strand breaks in DNA and inducing epigenetic changes [41]. These damages lead to the development of some responses (such as cell death, chromosome aberrations, mutations, genetic instability, cell transformation) that contribute to carcinogenesis sequentially.

Common sources of non-ionizing radiation include microwave ovens, computers, wireless networks, cell phones and power lines. RF and ELF radiation emitted from these sources have been included in the “possible carcinogen (Group 2B)” by IARC [42]. Epidemiological studies showing the risk of developing brain cancers in long-term mobile phone users are the main evidence for the identification of RF radiation as a possible carcinogen. In subsequent in vivo studies, it has been shown that long-term exposure to mobile phone radiation increases the risk of brain tumors [43, 44]. Children and adolescents may be more sensitive to RF radiation than adults [45]. There is evidence that RF radiation causes cancer development by mechanisms such as generating reactive oxygen species, inducing an inflammatory response, and inhibiting DNA repair and creating chromosome aberrations [46–48]. Although the WHO still has not defined it as a carcinogen, there are studies showing that RF and ELF radiation-induced electromagnetic fields contribute to the increase in brain cancers especially in children and adolescents, decrease in fertility rates in men, and increase of Alzheimer’s disease worldwide [49, 50].

Medical irradiation and risk of cancer. Exposure of individuals to radiation for medical diagnosis and treatment is a risk factor in cancer. Epidemiological studies show that children are more sensitive to radiation than adults. A single dose of radiation used for diagnostic purposes does not pose a great danger, but it is possible that the radiation exposed as a result of the widespread and frequent use of X-rays increases the risk of cancer [51]. Computed tomography (CT), which is accepted as the gold standard in the diagnosis of many diseases, has started to be used frequently in pediatric medicine. However, direct epidemiological evidence suggests that the radiation doses used in CT contribute to malignant neoplasms [52]. There are studies showing that head, neck and thorax CT scans increase the incidence of thyroid cancers [53, 54]. There is an increasing number of studies showing that medical imaging techniques (e.g. CT scans and fluoroscopic procedures) used for diagnostic purposes in pediatric patients reveal the risk of cancer in the future [52, 55].

Radiotherapy treatment can also lead to the development of secondary cancers as it affects healthy tissue. Ishida et al. [56] showed that patients who received cranial radiotherapy had a 6-fold higher risk of developing secondary cancers than those who did not. Radiotherapy for childhood leukemia or lymphoma treatments has a risk of developing secondary malignancies such as thyroid, skin and breast cancer [57–59]. Similarly, radiotherapy used in breast cancer treatment has led to the development of angiosarcomas [60].

Occupational carcinogens

Chemicals and cancer. Due to occupational exposure, the routine penetration of some chemicals through the skin (e.g. coal tar) or the routine inhalation of some chemicals (e.g. asbestos) cause mutagenic effects and these substances are considered a risk factor for cancer [61, 62]. The Table shows the main occupational chemical carcinogens that are carcinogenic to humans.

Table. Main occupational chemical carcinogens
Agents Main cancer cite Main Industry/use References
Aflotoxin Liver Agro-food industry [63]
Aminobiphenyl Bladder Rubber manufacture [64]
Arsenic Lung, skin Glass, metals, pesticides [65]
All types of asbestos Lung, mesothelioma Insulation, filter material, textiles [65]
Benzene Leukemia, lymphoma Solvent, fuel [66]
Beryllium Lung Aerospace industry/metals [65]
Coal tar Skin Aluminum production, steel and iron foundries, tar refineries [67]
Naphtylamine Bladder Dye/pigmet manufacture [68]
Nickel compounds Respiratory tract cancer Production of batteries, jewelry, various alloys, nickel plating, and stainless steel [69]
Vinyl chloride Lung Plastic industry [65]

Analyzes made based on current literature information showed that 2–8% of total cancers are associated with occupational exposures [70]. The most common cancer caused by occupational carcinogens is asbestos-induced lung cancer. [71]. A total of 23 different types of cancer, including lung, skin, bone, hematopoietic and lymphoid tissues, Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, urinary bladder, nasal cavity, thyroid, breast, kidney, larynx, liver, nasopharynx, biliary tract, brain, colon, oesophagus, eye, malignant melanoma, mesothelioma, ovary, salivary gland and stomach were associated with occupational carcinogens [61]. Some cancers are associated with more than one agent, while some agents are risk factors for more than one type of cancer. For example, agents such as asbestos, silica, arsenic, cadmium or nickel exposed in coal and related industries cause lung cancer. However, asbestos causes especially lung cancer and mesothelioma, but also causes cancer of the larynx and ovary [61, 65]. Cancers commonly associated with chemicals and chemical mixtures include lymphohematopoietic system tumors (25%), bladder (20%), lung (15%) and skin (15%) cancers [61]. Coal tar, which causes skin cancer, can be given as an example of chemical mixtures that are occupational carcinogens [67].

Ionizing radiation, radionuclides and cancer. Besides chemicals, ionizing radiation and radionuclides are associated with a wide variety of cancer types such as larynx, lung, skin, brain and central nervous system, liver, breast, leukemia, thyroid, bone, colon, kidney, stomach and bladder. Radon gas inhaled by underground miners causes lung cancer. Radium isotopes ingested by dial painters tend to accumulate in bones and teeth and are associated with bone tissue cancer. UV radiation produced in welding is associated with eye cancer [72].

Environmental pollution and cancer

Pollutants in drinking water and cancer risk. Bladder, skin and lung cancer risk has been determined in areas with high arsenic pollution groundwater [73]. Disinfection with chloramination, ozonation and chlorine dioxide cause the formation of nitrosamines in drinking water. The types and levels of these nitrosamines formed in drinking water systems are affected by many factors such as weather events (e.g. temperature), source water (e.g. organic precursors), water treatment processes (e.g. disinfectant types) and distribution system materials. As a result, the formation of nitrosamines in drinking water systems changes spatially and temporally [74]. Exposure to drinking water nitrosamines can pose a carcinogenic risk to human health, especially for children [75].

Pollutants in soil and cancer risk. Lead, which passes into the soil from chemical fertilizers used for agricultural purposes, is absorbed by plants and enters the daily diet. Lead entering the body cannot be metabolized or destroyed and is particularly associated with renal cancers [76]. Due to its widespread use, pesticides accumulating in air, water and soil cause pollution of agricultural resources. Pesticides that enter the body from agricultural sources are another risk factor associated with cancer [77]. In places where coal use is intense, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons create a serious accumulation in agricultural soils and emerge as a potential risk for cancer [78]. In addition, it has been determined that chronic exposure to arsenic and chromium accumulating in agricultural soils is a potential risk factor in cancer development. It has been shown that those living in areas where gold mining is carried out are exposed to systemic arsenic absorption and arsenic accumulated in the soil may be associated with cancers in the local population [79].


Infections and cancer. Infectious agents are one of the major risk factors in cancer disease, which have been identified after smoking. According to 2012 data of epidemiological studies, 2.2 million of 14 million new cancer cases are associated with infections [80]. Infection agents defined by the IARC as carcinogens; Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus human immunodeficiency virus type 1, human papilloma virus (HPV), Epstein — Barr virus, human herpesvirus type 8 (also known as Kaposi’s sarcoma herpesvirus), human T-cell lymphotropic virus type 1, Opisthorchis viverrini, Clonorchissinensis, and Schistosoma haematobium [81, 82].

Infectious agents can cause cancer to occur in different ways. For example, some infectious agents (e.g. hepatitis B virus, HPV, and Epstein — Barr virus) can directly contribute to the emergence of cancer by disrupting cellular barriers such as cellular regulation of telomerase, apoptosis, cellular adhesion or cell cycle control points, or mechanisms that reduce the rate of cell proliferation [83]. Some infectious agents such as hepatitis C virus, H. pylori create a long-term inflammatory response, which can indirectly contribute to the emergence of cancer by increasing proliferative signals and mutations [84]. Some infectious agents, such as human immunodeficiency virus type 1, also suppress the immune system that protects the organism against cancer development [85, 86].

Vaccines, safe injections, screening of donated blood and blood products with approved quality, antimicrobial treatments, eating habits avoided from consumption of raw or undercooked fish, safe sexual intercourse will have a significant effect in reducing cancer-related infections [81, 85].

Hormonal factors and cancer. It is controversial that female sex hormones (estrogen and progesterone) are an initiating factor in breast, endometrium, ovarian cancers, androgens in prostate cancers. However, it can be said that these hormones act as stimulating factors in tumor growth and progression [87].

Factors that lead to higher exposure to estrogen over the course of life, such as early menarche, late menopause, late first pregnancy and not giving birth, increase the risk of breast cancer. It is possible that female sex hormones increase the risk of developing these cancers through mechanisms such as increasing cell proliferation, decreasing apoptosis and causing DNA damage [88]. Factors that reduce exposure to endogenous estrogen, such as pregnancy and breastfeeding, reduce the risk of breast cancer. Some studies show that pregnancy and breastfeeding are a protective factor in breast cancer because of the differentiation of breast cells to produce milk. Cells that undergo this differentiation are less likely to turn into cancer cells [89]. Similarly, menopausal hormone therapy (estrogen + progesterone) can increase the risk of breast cancer. Since estrogen therapy alone in menopausal hormone therapy may increase the risk of endometrial cancer, it can only be applied to people with hysterectomy [90]. Oral contraceptives containing female sex hormones are considered as risk factors for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The possible mechanism underlying female sex hormones as a risk factor in cervical cancer is that these hormones increase the expression of E6 and E7 oncogenes, which degrade the p53 tumor suppressor gene in HPV virus (the main risk factor in cervical cancer) [91, 92]. On the other hand, the use of oral contraceptives is a risk-reducing factor in endometrial and ovarian cancers. Possible underlying reasons for this situation are female sex hormones suppressing endometrial cell proliferation and reducing the number of ovulations [93, 94].

The acceptance of androgens as a risk factor in the progression of prostate cancer is based on experimental studies. However, there are no clear clinical results showing that endogenous androgens cause the progression of prostate cancer [95]. It is not known exactly how androgens increase the risk of prostate cancer. However, it has been shown that there is a significant relationship between the single nucleotide polymorphism in genes encoding enzymes associated with the synthesis of these hormones and the risk of prostate cancer [96].


Prevention is the most effective strategy in combating cancer. With the knowledge of current risk factors, it seems possible to prevent cancer significantly and therefore the primary prevention is an issue that should be prioritized. In order to make progress in understanding the risk factors in cancer, the biological knowledge that explains the causes of cancer needs to be advanced. As the studies on risk factors increase, it will be possible to develop new strategies for cancer prevention.


1. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2019; 144: 1941–53. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31937
2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394–424.
3. Knowles M, Selby P. Introduction to the cellular and molecular biology, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, England, 2005; 0-19-856853-3
4. Wu S, Zhu W, Thompson P, et al. Evaluating intrinsic and non-intrinsic cancer risk factors. Nat Commun 2018; 9: 3490. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05467
5. Warren GW, Cummings KM. Tobacco and lung cancer: risks, trends, and outcomes in patients with cancer. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2013: 359–64. doi: 10.14694/EdBook_AM.2013.33.359
6. Andreotti G, Freedman ND, Silverman DT, et al. Tobacco use and cancer risk in the agricultural health study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: 769–78. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965
7. Stabbert R, Dempsey R, Diekmann J, et al. Studies on the contributions of smoke constituents, individually and in mixtures, in a range of in vitro bioactivity assays. Toxicol In Vitro 2017; 42: 222–46.
8. Shukla RK, Kant S, Mittal B, et al. Polymorphism of cytochrome p450, glutathione-s-transferase and N-acetyltransferases: influence on lung cancer susceptibility. Niger J Med 2010; 19: 257–63. doi: 10.4314/njm.v19i3.60174
9. Basu AK. DNA damage, mutagenesis and cancer. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19: 970. doi: 10.3390/ijms19040970
10. Kunzmann AT, Coleman HG, Huang WY, et al. Dietary fiber intake and risk of colorectal cancer and incident and recurrent adenoma in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2015; 102: 881–90. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.113282
11. Key TJ, Bradbury KE, Perez-Cornago A, et al. Diet, nutrition, and cancer risk: what do we know and what is the way forward? BMJ 2020; 368: 511. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m511
12. Lewandowska AM, Rudzki M, Rudzki S, et al. Environmental risk factors for cancer — review paper. Ann Agric Environ Med 2019; 26: 1–7. doi: 10.26444/aaem/94299
13. Lennon H, Sperrin M, Badrick E, et al. The obesity paradox in cancer: a review. Curr Oncol Rep 2016; 18: 56. doi: 10.1007/s11912-016-0539-4
14. Dirx MJ, Zeegers MP, Dagnelie PC, et al. Energy restriction and the risk of spontaneous mammary tumors in mice: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer 2003; 106: 766–70. doi:10.1002/ijc.11277
15. Matsuzaki J, Yamaji R, Kiyomiya K, et al. Implanted tumor growth is suppressed and survival is prolonged in sixty percent of food-restricted mice. J Nutr 2000; 130: 111–5.
16. Harvell DM, Strecker TE, Xie B, et al. Dietary energy restriction inhibits estrogen-induced mammary, but not pituitary, tumorigenesis in the ACI rat. Carcinogenesis 2002; 23: 161–9.
17. Michels KB, Ekbom A. Caloric restriction and incidence of breast cancer. JAMA 2004; 291: 1226–30. doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1226
18. Himbert C, Delphan M, Scherer D, et al. Signals from the adipose microenvironment and the obesity-cancer link-a systematic review. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2017; 10: 494–506. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207
19. Ratna A, Mandrekar P. Alcohol and cancer: mechanisms and therapies. Biomolecules 2017; 7: 61. doi: 10.3390/biom7030061
20. Scheideler JK, Klein WMP. Awareness of the link between alcohol consumption and cancer across the world: A review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2018; 27: 429–37. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965
21. De Menezes RF, Bergmann A, Thuler LC. Alcohol consumption and risk of cancer: a systematic literature review. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2013; 14: 4965–72. doi: 10.7314/apjcp.2013.14.9.4965
22. Seitz HK, Stickel F. Molecular mechanisms of alcohol-mediated carcinogenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 2007; 7: 599–612. doi:10.1038/nrc2191
23. Donaldson MS. Nutrition and cancer: a review of the evidence for an anti-cancer diet. Nutr J 2004; 3: 19. doi:10.1186/1475-2891-3-19
24. Giovannucci E, Harlan DM, Archer MC, et al. Diabetes and cancer: a consensus report. Diabetes Care 2010; 33: 1674–85. doi: 10.2337/dc10-0666
25. Aune D, Chan DSM, Lau R, et al. Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies. BMJ 2011; 343: 6617.
26. Murphy N, Norat T, Ferrari P, et al. Dietary fibre intake and risks of cancers of the colon and rectum in the European prospective investigation into cancer and nutrition (EPIC). PLoS One 2012; 7: 39361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039361
27. Bouvard V, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1599–600. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1
28. Lippi G, Mattiuzzi C, Cervellin G. Meat consumption and cancer risk: a critical review of published meta-analyses. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016; 97: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2015.11.008
29. Hammerling U, Laurila JB, Grafström R, et al. Consumption of red/processed meat and colorectal carcinoma: possible mechanisms underlying the significant association. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 2016; 56: 614–34.
30. Domingo JL, Nadal M. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat: A review of scientific news since the IARC decision. Food Chem Toxicol 2017; 105: 256–61. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.028
31. Nabavi SF, Bilotto S, Russo GL, et al. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cancer: lessons learned from clinical trials. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2015; 34: 359–80. doi: 10.1007/s10555-015-9572-2
32. Jing K, Wu T, Lim K. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids and cancer. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 2013; 13: 1162–77. doi: 10.2174/18715206113139990319
33. Poorolajal J, Moradi L, Mohammadi Y, et al. Risk factors for stomach cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis Epidemiol Health 2020; 42: 1–8. doi: 10.4178/epih.e2020004.
34. Fox JG, Dangler CA, Taylor NS, et al. High-salt diet induces gastric epithelial hyperplasia and parietal cell loss, and enhances Helicobacter pylori colonization in C57BL/6 mice. Cancer Res 1999; 59: 4823–8.
35. Kato S, Nakajima S, Nishino Y, et al. Association between gastric atrophy and Helicobacter pylori infection in Japanese children: a retrospective multicenter study. Dig Dis Sci 2006; 51: 99–104. doi: 10.1007/s10620-006-3091-5
36. Takahashi M, Hasegawa R. Enhancing effects of dietary salt on both initiation and promotion stages of rat gastric carcinogenesis. Princess Takamatsu Symp 1985; 16: 169–82.
37. Furihata C, Ohta H, Katsuyama T. Cause and effect between concentration-dependent tissue damage and temporary cell proliferation in rat stomach mucosa by NaCl, a stomach tumor promoter. Carcinogenesis 1996; 17: 401–6. doi: 10.1093/carcin/17.3.401
38. McColl N, Auvinen A, Kesminiene A, et al. European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Ionising and non-ionising radiation and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39: 93–100. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.03.016
39. Wakeford R. The cancer epidemiology of radiation. Oncogene 2004; 23: 6404–28. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207896
40. El Ghissassi F, Baan R, Straif K, et al. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. A review of human carcinogens–part D: radiation. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10: 751–2. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(09)70213-x
41. Greinert R, De Vries E, Erdmann F, et al. European Code against Cancer 4th Edition: Ultraviolet radiation and cancer. Cancer Epidemiol 2015; 39: 75–83. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2014.12.014
42. Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, et al. WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12: 624–6. doi: 10.1016/s1470-2045(11)70147-4
43. Wyde ME, Horn TL, Capstick MH, et al. Effect of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on body temperature in rodents: Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s reverberation chamber exposure system. Bioelectromagnetics 2018; 39: 190–9. doi: 10.1002/bem.22116
44. Falcioni L, Bua L, Tibaldi E, et al. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Environ Res 2018; 165: 496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037
45. Gandhi OP, Morgan LL, De Salles AA, et al. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagn Biol Med 2012; 31: 34–51. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2011.622827
46. Markovà E, Malmgren LOG, Belyaev IY. Microwaves from mobile phones inhibit 53BP1 Focus formation in human stem cells more strongly than in differentiated cells: Possible mechanistic link to cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect 2010; 118: 394–9. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0900781
47. Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Ravi AK, et al. Effect of low-intensity microwave radiation on monoamine neurotransmitters and their key regulating enzymes in rat brain. Cell Biochem Biophys 2015; 73: 93–100. doi: 10.1007/s12013-015-0576-x
48. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, et al. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med 2016; 35: 186–202. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557
49. Hardell L. World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health — a hard nut to crack (Review). Int J Oncol 2017; 51: 405–13. doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4046
50. Belpomme D, Hardell L, Belyaev I, et al. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. Environ Pollut 2018; 242: 643–58. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.019
51. Anand P, Kunnumakkara AB, Sundaram C, et al. Cancer is a preventable disease that requires major lifestyle changes. Pharm Res 2008; 25: 2097–116. doi: 10.1007/s11095-008-9661-9
52. Sinnott B, Ron E, Schneider AB. Exposing the thyroid to radiation: a review of its current extent, risks, and implications. Endocr Rev 2010; 31: 756–73. doi: 10.1210/er.2010-0003
53. de González AB, Mahesh M, Kim KP, et al. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 2071–7. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.440
54. Mazonakis M, Tzedakis A, Damilakis J, et al. Thyroid dose from common head and neck CT examinations in children: is there an excess risk for thyroid cancer induction? Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1352–7. doi: 10.1007/s00330-006-0417-9
55. Mulvihill DJ, Jhawar S, Kostis JB, et al. Diagnostic medical imaging in pediatric patients and subsequent cancer risk. Acad Radiol 2017; 24: 1456–62. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.05.009
56. Ishida Y, Maeda M, Urayama KY, et al. QOL committee of Tokyo Children’s Cancer Study Group (TCCSG). Secondary cancers among children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia treated by the Tokyo Children’s Cancer Study Group protocols: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Haematol 2014; 164: 101–12. doi: 10.1111/bjh.12602
57. Green DM, Hyland A, Barcos MP, et al. Second malignant neoplasms after treatment for Hodgkin’s disease in childhood or adolescence. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 1492–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.7.1492
58. Maule M, Scélo G, Pastore G, et al. Risk of second malignant neoplasms after childhood leukemia and lymphoma: an international study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007; 99: 790–800. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djk180
59. O’Brien MM, Donaldson SS, Balise RR, et al. Second malignant neoplasms in survivors of pediatric Hodgkin’s lymphoma treated with low-dose radiation and chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1232–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.8062
60. Goldust M, Giulini M, Weidenthaler-Barth B, et al. Increased risk of angiosarcoma secondary to cancer radiotherapy: Case series and review of the treatment options. Dermatol Ther 2020; 33: 1–5. doi: 10.1111/dth.13234
61. Loomis D, Guha N, Hall AL, et al. Identifying occupational carcinogens: an update from the IARC Monographs. Occup Environ Med 2018; 75: 593–603. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2017-104944
62. Solbes E, Harper RW. Biological responses to asbestos inhalation and pathogenesis of asbestos-related benign and malignant disease. J Investig Med 2018; 66: 721–7. doi: 10.1136/jim-2017-000628
63. Masciarelli E, Casorri L, Luigi MD, et al. Aflatoxins exposition in the agri-food industry workers. Ital J Mycol 2020; 49: 54–84. doi:10.6092/issn.2531-7342/107
64. Sorahan T. Bladder cancer risks in workers manufacturing chemicals for the rubber industry. Occup Med 2008; 58: 496–501. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqn104
65. Shankar A, Dubey A, Saini D, et al. Environmental and occupational determinants of lung cancer. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2019; 8: 31–49. doi: 10.21037/tlcr.2019.03.05
66. Snyder R. Leukemia and benzene. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2012; 9: 2875–93. doi: 10.3390/ijerph9082875
67. Moustafa GA, Xanthopoulou E, Riza E, et al. Skin disease after occupational dermal exposure to coal tar: a review of the scientific literature. Int J Dermatol 2015; 54: 868–79.
68. Brown T, Slack R, Rushton L. Occupational cancer in Britain. Urinary tract cancers: bladder and kidney. Br J Cancer 2012; 107; 76–84. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.121
69. Chen QY, DesMarais T, Costa M. Metals and mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2019; 59: 537–54. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010818-021031
70. Purdue MP, Hutchings SJ, Rushton L, et al. The proportion of cancer attributable to occupational exposures. Ann Epidemiol 2015; 25: 188–92. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2014.11.009
71. Carles C, Verdun-Esquer C, Leclerc I, et al. Occupational cancers: Risks and prevention. Bull Cancer 2019; 106: 665–77. doi: 10.1016/j.bulcan.2018.10.010
72. Guha N, Loomis D, Guyton KZ, et al. International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. Carcinogenicity of welding, molybdenum trioxide, and indium tin oxide. Lancet Oncol 2017; 18: 581–82. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30255-3
73. Boffetta P, Nyberg F. Contribution of environmental factors to cancer risk. Br Med Bull 2003; 68: 71–94. doi: 10.1093/bmp/ldg023
74. Woods GC, Trenholm RA, Hale B, et al. Seasonal and spatial variability of nitrosamines and their precursor sources at a large-scale urban drinking water system. Sci Total Environ 2015; 520: 120–6. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.03.012
75. Luo Q, Bei E, Liu C, et al. Spatial, temporal variability and carcinogenic health risk assessment of nitrosamines in a drinking water system in China. Sci Total Environ 2020; 736: 139695. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139695
76. Rashidi M, Alavipanah SK. Relation between kidney cancer and soil leads in Isfahan Province, Iran between 2007 and 2009. J Cancer Res Ther 2016; 12: 716–20. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.154936
77. Czajka M, Matysiak-Kucharek M, Jodłowska-Jędrych B, et al. Organophosphorus pesticides can influence the development of obesity and type 2 diabetes with concomitant metabolic changes. Environ Res 2019; 178: 108685. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2019.108685
78. Qi H, Chen X, Du YE, et al. Cancer risk assessment of soils contaminated by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in Shanxi, China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 2019; 182: 109381. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2019.109381
79. Pearce DC, Dowling K, Sim MR. Cancer incidence and soil arsenic exposure in a historical gold mining area in Victoria, Australia: a geospatial analysis. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 2012; 22: 248–57. doi:10.1038/jes.2012.15
80. Plummer M, De Martel C, Vignat J, et al. Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2012: a synthetic analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2016; 4: 609–16. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30143-7
81. Oh JK, Weiderpass E. Infection and cancer: global distribution and burden of diseases. Ann Glob Health 2014; 80: 384–92.
82. Kanda T, Goto T, Hirotsu Y, et al. Molecular mechanisms driving progression of liver cirrhosis towards hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic hepatitis B and C infections: A review. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20: 1358. doi: 10.3390/ijms20061358
83. Ewald PW, Ewald HAS. Infection and cancer in multicellular organisms. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2015; 9: 1673. doi:10.1098/rstb.2014.0224
84. Morals-Sánchez A, Fuentes-Pananá EM. Human viruses and cancer. Viruses 2014; 6: 4047–79. doi: 10.3390/v6104047
85. Engels EA, Biggar RJ, Hall HI, et al. Cancer risk in people infected with human immunodeficiency virus in the United States. Int J Cancer 2008; 123: 187-94. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23487
86. Masrour-Roudsari J, Ebrahimpour S. Causal role of infectious agents in cancer: An overview. Caspian J Intern Med 2017; 8: 153–8. doi: 10.22088/cjim.8.3.153
87. Reznikov A. Hormonal impact on tumor growth and progression. Exp Oncol 2015; 37: 162–72.
88. Brown SB, Hankinson SE. Endogenous estrogens and the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. Steroids 2015; 99: 8–10. doi:10.1016/j.steroids.2014.12.013
89. Britt K, Ashworth A, Smalley M. Pregnancy and the risk of breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2007; 14: 907–33. doi: 10.1677/ERC-07-0137
90. LaCroix AZ, Chlebowski RT, Manson JE, et al. Health outcomes after stopping conjugated equine estrogens among postmenopausal women with prior hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2011; 305: 1305–14. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.382
91. Hunter DJ, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer: a prospective study of young women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; 19: 2496–502. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965
92. Roura E, Travier N, Waterboer T, et al. The influence of hormonal factors on the risk of developing cervical cancer and pre-cancer: Results from the EPIC Cohort. PLoS One 2016; 11: 1–17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147029
93. Havrilesky LJ, Moorman PG, Lowery WJ, et al. Oral contraceptive pills as primary prevention for ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 139–47. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318291c235
94. Michels KA, Pfeiffer RM, Brinton LA, et al. Modification of the associations between duration of oral contraceptive use and ovarian, endometrial, breast, and colorectal cancers. JAMA Oncol 2018; 4: 516–21. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4942
95. Michaud JE, Billups KL, Partin AW. Testosterone and prostate cancer: an evidence-based review of pathogenesis and oncologic risk. Ther Adv Urol 2015; 7: 378–87. doi: 10.1177/1756287215597633
96. Rawla P. Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World J Oncol 2019; 10: 63–89. doi: 10.14740/wjon1191


С. Ілдирім-Кахріман*

Університет Деміроглу Білім, Стамбул 34394, Туреччина

Резюме. Обсяг наших знань про етіологію раку постійно збільшується. Значна частина досліджень вказує на те, що основними факторами ризику виникнення раку є зовнішні чинники, пов’язані з довкіллям або способом життя. З іншого боку, є й внутрішні причини розвитку раку, пов’язані з помилками реплікації ДНК. Цим факторам важко запобігти. Але оскільки внесок саме зов­нішніх факторів у виникнення злоякісних захворювань є найбільшим, розвиток раку в цих випадках можна відвернути. Мета даного огляду — проаналізувати відомі зовнішні фактори розвитку злоякісних новоутворень у світлі останніх досліджень.

Ключові слова: рак, зовнішні фактори ризику, профілактика раку.

No Comments » Add comments
Leave a comment

ERROR: si-captcha.php plugin says GD image support not detected in PHP!

Contact your web host and ask them why GD image support is not enabled for PHP.

ERROR: si-captcha.php plugin says imagepng function not detected in PHP!

Contact your web host and ask them why imagepng function is not enabled for PHP.