YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community - View Single Post

SirTeddykins · 03-10-2015, 01:02 AM

Sorry, also meant to comment on the research paper which has generated so much interested discourse here:

Within the conclusion is the following statement by the researchers:

Substantial between-breed variation in the incidence of pyometra and MTs was

demonstrated.

These differences indicate that genetic factors may predispose and/or protect for disease development. These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.

These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.

Therefore, we can take from this statement that genes are playing a factor in certain breeds risk for developing these two types of cancers i.e. breed standards/breeders of purebred dogs are not taking this risk into consideration. (We have to assume that these dogs mentioned are purebred. I have seen some dogs which people claim are purebred which are NOT yet they are registered as a definite breed for insurance purposes. This raises another interesting issue in this research paper because it was assumed that owners info re: their dogs were accurate on the basis of insurance. I think we all know that just because people THINK their dogs are certain breeds - it isn't always the case).

The authors do NOT state that spaying females will PREVENT these tumors. However, from what I know about estrogen production, there is no doubt in my mind that spaying would dramatically REDUCE the chances of mammary tumors for breeds which are genetically predisposed.

However, they do state in the discussion section:

However, recently the protective effects by spaying on MT development have been questioned (Beauvais et al. 2012). In the present study, high incidences (up to 73%) of pyometra and MTs were demonstrated in some giant and large breeds of which are commonly affected by post spaying urinary incontinence (Thrusfield et al. 1998). Since the pros and cons of elective spaying will vary by breed, knowledge of breed-variations will be clinically useful in the decision process for each dog.

This is an important point to make because it suggests that the evidence that spaying CONCLUSIVELY protects against mammary tumors just isn't there... AND, it suggests that CLINICAL (vet) discussions are had prior to the surgery to consider the efficacy by BREED. Sadly, the only information contained here is re: larger breeds so more info would be needed re: YT's before we could comment on that aspect. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions either way on the basis of this papers result alone.

Also, the authors declare no bias but their research was part funded by the insurance company:

Acknowledgements

Agria Pet Insurance kindly allowed us to use their database. Financial

support was provided by Thure F. and Karin Forsbergs Research

Foundation, M. Forsgrens Research Foundation and Agria Insurance

and The Swedish Kennel Club Research Foundation.

Therefore, their statement re: no conflict of interest is not true. I am surprised that this has not been picked up but these things often get missed in research papers submitted on behalf of the funding body.

I hope my opinion has helped put some things into perspective. I am a harsh critic of research because my research is harshly criticized and rightly so...

That is the nature of the profession! This paper is USEFUL but it is not FLAWLESS. Much like me...maybe the other way around? Flawless but useless?

03-10-2015, 01:02 AM	#366
SirTeddykins aka ♥SquishyFace♥ Donating Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: n/a Posts: 1,875	Sorry, also meant to comment on the research paper which has generated so much interested discourse here: Within the conclusion is the following statement by the researchers: Substantial between-breed variation in the incidence of pyometra and MTs was demonstrated. These differences indicate that genetic factors may predispose and/or protect for disease development. These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds. These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds. Therefore, we can take from this statement that genes are playing a factor in certain breeds risk for developing these two types of cancers i.e. breed standards/breeders of purebred dogs are not taking this risk into consideration. (We have to assume that these dogs mentioned are purebred. I have seen some dogs which people claim are purebred which are NOT yet they are registered as a definite breed for insurance purposes. This raises another interesting issue in this research paper because it was assumed that owners info re: their dogs were accurate on the basis of insurance. I think we all know that just because people THINK their dogs are certain breeds - it isn't always the case). The authors do NOT state that spaying females will PREVENT these tumors. However, from what I know about estrogen production, there is no doubt in my mind that spaying would dramatically REDUCE the chances of mammary tumors for breeds which are genetically predisposed. However, they do state in the discussion section: However, recently the protective effects by spaying on MT development have been questioned (Beauvais et al. 2012). In the present study, high incidences (up to 73%) of pyometra and MTs were demonstrated in some giant and large breeds of which are commonly affected by post spaying urinary incontinence (Thrusfield et al. 1998). Since the pros and cons of elective spaying will vary by breed, knowledge of breed-variations will be clinically useful in the decision process for each dog. This is an important point to make because it suggests that the evidence that spaying CONCLUSIVELY protects against mammary tumors just isn't there... AND, it suggests that CLINICAL (vet) discussions are had prior to the surgery to consider the efficacy by BREED. Sadly, the only information contained here is re: larger breeds so more info would be needed re: YT's before we could comment on that aspect. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions either way on the basis of this papers result alone. Also, the authors declare no bias but their research was part funded by the insurance company: Acknowledgements Agria Pet Insurance kindly allowed us to use their database. Financial support was provided by Thure F. and Karin Forsbergs Research Foundation, M. Forsgrens Research Foundation and Agria Insurance and The Swedish Kennel Club Research Foundation. Therefore, their statement re: no conflict of interest is not true. I am surprised that this has not been picked up but these things often get missed in research papers submitted on behalf of the funding body. I hope my opinion has helped put some things into perspective. I am a harsh critic of research because my research is harshly criticized and rightly so... That is the nature of the profession! This paper is USEFUL but it is not FLAWLESS. Much like me...maybe the other way around? Flawless but useless?