"Vaccine site-associated sarcomas were renamed as injection site-associated sarcomas as an acknowledgement that they can occur after injection of a variety of medications, including antibiotics, long-acting corticosteroids and insulin."
Great clarification. People ought to know that a lot of vaccine skepticism is related to excipients and not the actual vaccine. All types of injectable preparations tend to contain preservatives, for example, some of which (like thimerosal) have been controversial in the past
Ever since I read about VAS/FISS last year, I've been re-evaluating our cat's vaccination needs, especially since he's indoor-only and doesn't interact with other cats. I'll continue to get him the three-year FVRCP and rabies vaccines, since they're pretty terrible diseases, and the former three are super contagious, but FeLV and FIV seem unnecessary considering his circumstances.
If there's evidence it's not disinformation. Not all false claims are disinformation. And if the evidence is mistaken, you need to provide evidence for that claim. You can't just assume a priori that any claim about a link between vaccines and cancer must be false.
This isn't anti-vaccine propaganda. This is a real issue that specifically affects cats, and is extremely well documented.
In addition, this paper investigates alternative injection sites that reduce occurence while still providing the benefits of vaccination, not avoiding vaccination entirely.
It would be extremely bad anti-vaccine propaganda if that was the intent.
We've banned this account for repeatedly posting flamewar comments and ignoring our request to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36037817). Regardless of how right you are or feel you are, you can't post abusively like this.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
If you're going to claim this is misinformation, please provide sources to back up this claim, since you seem to be presenting a claim that is contrary to the available scientific evidence that I've read about, at least. (Also consider that we're talking about cats here, not humans; I don't think anyone credible is claiming that there's a link between vaccines and cancer in humans.)
Also note that this isn't about vaccines, specifically. The term used now is "injection site-associated sarcoma", as any kind of injection (antibiotics, sedatives, fluids, etc.) can potentially cause this. It's not about the vaccine and has nothing to do with anti-vaxxers; the mechanism is still poorly understood, and the simple act of injecting anything may trigger it.
Edit: based on your other responses you sound like you're just trolling. Downvoted and flagged; moving on with my life.
>>Distal limb injection is recommended to facilitate amputation with 5 cm margins in two fascial planes in the case of injection-site sarcoma.
>>Tail vaccination has also been reported as well tolerated and elicited acceptable serological responses to vaccination in the distal limbs.
>>The 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination Advisory Panel Report included recommendations for specific vaccine antigens to be administered at specific anatomical locations in the distal limbs. This technique has helped facilitate the identification of the vaccine antigen used if a sarcoma developed subsequently at the injection site. Since this technique has been widely adopted, these injection-site recommendations have also led to a shift in the site of tumor formation to the distal limbs, thus facilitating potentially life-saving surgery for patients suffering from these invasive tumors.
-------------
If you have better information, please provide it. This has nothing to do with the concept that vaccines are bad, and everything to do with the concept that evidence-based (vet) medicine saves (animal) lives.
The vet my cats get their routine care at has switched to suggesting intranasal for most routine vaccines in cats. The evidence seems to be that intranasal conveys a slightly better immunity (possibly by specifically sensitizing the mucous membranes) and avoids the small but well-characterized injection-site sarcoma risk, at the cost of a 30% chance of some minor cold-like side effects for a few days.
Cats seem to be a bit over-vaccinated these days. The FeLV (feline leukemia) and FIV (cat HIV) vaccines are pretty silly to administer outside of high-risk situations. Indoor-only cats who've tested negative and don't interact with other cats really don't need them. Despite this (with guidance along these lines provided over 10 years ago), many vets still push at least the FeLV vaccine. I got our cat his latest FeLV shot last fall after he turned two, but I don't think I'll be continuing it in the future.
There are now three-year versions of the FVRCP and rabies vaccines that can be given once the cat is no longer a kitten, which should cut the risk of injection site sarcoma by quite a bit. I probably wouldn't recommend against rabies vaccination, since contracting it is a death sentence. The three diseases FVRCP protects against are all super contagious and pretty dangerous, so same deal there.
I was reading about vaccine-associated sarcoma / injection site-associated sarcoma last year, and it seems pretty scary. You have to notice and recognize it pretty much immediately, and perform surgery. Often removing the tumor isn't enough, and you have to amputate the limb, assuming you get to it quickly enough, before it spreads to the rest of the body. This is why current guidance is to give cats the shots as far away from the main body as possible, as doing so makes it easier to remove any tumors that might result. (And even then, there's still often recurrence, even when "successful".)
If vaccinating via the tail is just as effective as the hind leg, this seems like a win. Amputation sucks no matter how you dice it, but I think a cat will recover better and more fully after a partial tail amputation, over a limb (even partial) amputation. I do wonder how widespread tail vaccination is, though. I've never heard of it, even though this paper was published nine years ago. Our vet definitely doesn't do it.
I've read a few articles over the years about the vaccination schedule for cats and how its not necessarily driven by medical reasons. Given that information, and that I live in a rabies free country, my cats got the first vaccinations and the follow up boosters when they were kittens, and then at 4 years old. I would look to getting them vaccinated again at 10 unless there's a good reason for doing it earlier. Good reasons would include travel, a new disease/vaccination is available - basically the same reasons for getting a vaccination myself.
27 comments
[ 7.7 ms ] story [ 72.3 ms ] threadhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1098612X13483239?ur...
at least we suspected that's what the cause was since it was in the upper hind leg / near base of tail. cat was healthy for 9yrs before this.
Well, Israeli street cat average lifespan is 1-2 years. You can say that he got 9 lifes
Ever since I read about VAS/FISS last year, I've been re-evaluating our cat's vaccination needs, especially since he's indoor-only and doesn't interact with other cats. I'll continue to get him the three-year FVRCP and rabies vaccines, since they're pretty terrible diseases, and the former three are super contagious, but FeLV and FIV seem unnecessary considering his circumstances.
When we discovered tumor it was too big to remove (it went from his neck to hind leg on one side of backbone)
In addition, this paper investigates alternative injection sites that reduce occurence while still providing the benefits of vaccination, not avoiding vaccination entirely.
It would be extremely bad anti-vaccine propaganda if that was the intent.
Please don't create accounts to break HN's rules with.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Also note that this isn't about vaccines, specifically. The term used now is "injection site-associated sarcoma", as any kind of injection (antibiotics, sedatives, fluids, etc.) can potentially cause this. It's not about the vaccine and has nothing to do with anti-vaxxers; the mechanism is still poorly understood, and the simple act of injecting anything may trigger it.
Edit: based on your other responses you sound like you're just trolling. Downvoted and flagged; moving on with my life.
>>Distal limb injection is recommended to facilitate amputation with 5 cm margins in two fascial planes in the case of injection-site sarcoma.
>>Tail vaccination has also been reported as well tolerated and elicited acceptable serological responses to vaccination in the distal limbs.
>>The 2013 AAFP Feline Vaccination Advisory Panel Report included recommendations for specific vaccine antigens to be administered at specific anatomical locations in the distal limbs. This technique has helped facilitate the identification of the vaccine antigen used if a sarcoma developed subsequently at the injection site. Since this technique has been widely adopted, these injection-site recommendations have also led to a shift in the site of tumor formation to the distal limbs, thus facilitating potentially life-saving surgery for patients suffering from these invasive tumors.
-------------
If you have better information, please provide it. This has nothing to do with the concept that vaccines are bad, and everything to do with the concept that evidence-based (vet) medicine saves (animal) lives.
There are now three-year versions of the FVRCP and rabies vaccines that can be given once the cat is no longer a kitten, which should cut the risk of injection site sarcoma by quite a bit. I probably wouldn't recommend against rabies vaccination, since contracting it is a death sentence. The three diseases FVRCP protects against are all super contagious and pretty dangerous, so same deal there.
I was reading about vaccine-associated sarcoma / injection site-associated sarcoma last year, and it seems pretty scary. You have to notice and recognize it pretty much immediately, and perform surgery. Often removing the tumor isn't enough, and you have to amputate the limb, assuming you get to it quickly enough, before it spreads to the rest of the body. This is why current guidance is to give cats the shots as far away from the main body as possible, as doing so makes it easier to remove any tumors that might result. (And even then, there's still often recurrence, even when "successful".)
If vaccinating via the tail is just as effective as the hind leg, this seems like a win. Amputation sucks no matter how you dice it, but I think a cat will recover better and more fully after a partial tail amputation, over a limb (even partial) amputation. I do wonder how widespread tail vaccination is, though. I've never heard of it, even though this paper was published nine years ago. Our vet definitely doesn't do it.
problem is, the damn cat wont tell you until it's too late.