All you cat owners out there are likely to know about the infamous, vaccine-associated sarcoma. You may not know it by name, but you’ve doubtless heard about the aggressive tumors cats can get at their vaccine injection sites.
But here’s something you might not have heard yet: This month, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association reported something exciting: The incidence of these tumors is down from 1 in 5,000 to 0 in one million—in this one published study. (Sorry, I can't give you a link yet--the news is too fresh, apparently.)
Here’s the back-story:
Uncommon though they are, these tumors are notoriously aggressive and have been associated specifically with vaccine-type injections, though (theoretically) almost any injection could have caused it.
Most cancers don’t need a good reason—they just happen. But when tumors crop up right where injections have been administered in the past, it’s irresponsible for us to turn a blind eye to this possibility. (By “us,” I refer to those of us in the business of veterinary practice, science and industry.)
What we suspect is that vaccines create inflammation in the skin. In an attempt to address this insult, a cat’s immune system can get confused and enables cancer cells within normal skin.
Fortunately, these cancers aren’t of the wildly-spreading variety. They are, nonetheless, extremely hostile to the tissues they invade. As a result, aggressive surgery of these tumors is the mainstay of treatment. According to veterinary surgeons, that means removing wide swathes of skin and muscle (and sometimes bone) surrounding them.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force, the situation is best managed by injection of vaccines in spots far away from the shoulders (historically, the most common site for tumors and among the most difficult sites to address surgically). They also recommend using as few vaccines as necessary during a cat’s lifespan, but caution that you should never forego infectious disease prevention because of this infrequent outcome.
The more cynical among you might think this sounds like “committee-speak,” the kind of talk meant to protect vaccine-pushing vets and the companies supplying them, while still hedging their bets on the safety issue.
Truth is (my cynicism currently at bay), I’m in their camp on this one. While I certainly don’t consider myself a vax-pusher, I’m by no means on the no-vax, alternative medicine-exclusive bandwagon, either. I may be self-aggrandizingly misguided here, but I like to consider mine a balanced perspective based on science, not commerce…evidence, not alarmism.
This crisis in feline vaccine-associated sarcomas has been evolving for twenty or more years. Once an “association” was established between vaccines and these tumors, the industry got moving. Though, in retrospect, an outsider might observe a mighty-slow move towards action (especially considering the severity of these tumors), even I (ever the cynic) was surprised by the alacrity of the response within the veterinary industry.
The feline practitioners came out en-masse. The Universitarians had their say (and then some). The AVMA coordinated its Task Force. Vaccine manufacturers changed their recipes (albeit quietly—to discourage litigation, no doubt, but also in deference to its acknowledged responsibility). And the rest of us vets, slowest to act, were left to our own devices.
Ever so cautiously, we’ve changed our tactics: vaccinating less and vaccinating under the skin of the lower hind limbs, as goes the recommendation of the Task Force. (Callous as it sounds, it’s much easier to remove a hind limb than a spine should a nasty tumor ensue.) But, as a profession, we’ve been sloooow to enact these measures.
Many of us vets still flout these recommendations, citing poor evidence of causality in tumor creation (sure, that’s why we call them vaccine-“associated” tumors), prevalence of infectious disease (which many still contend requires yearly vaccination) and the need to maintain an annual vaccine schedule so clients will present their cats for exams (that’s got some merit but that doesn’t hold water with most of you, does it?).
And, truth is, statistically speaking, our cats are better off vaccinated and at risk of sarcomas than unvaccinated and 100% sarcoma-free. Infectious diseases kill more commonly and more effectively than these cancers do. But there’s a balance somewhere, isn’t there? I think so. It’s called “minimized vaccination schedules:” give what’s needed and give no more.
Because of all our efforts, slow adopters in the vet profession notwithstanding, the rate of these sarcomas seems to have fallen off…almost completely. In this case, I give kudos to the feline-exclusive practitioners, the AVMA, relentless academicians and vaccine manufacturers (backside-sensitivity is a good thing and responsible action, even better). The rest of us vets? We’re just hangin’ on the coattails of our betters on this one.
Sometimes our best efforts fail us in veterinary medicine. No vet wants to see a patient afflicted with a serious disease he or she inadvertently caused while undertaking to prevent another. But we’re charged with the responsibility to do our best—and sometimes that means adopting the recommendations of the more cautious among us. In this case, I think they’ve proven themselves worth listening to.
Add Comment22 Comments
Having lost a cat to VAS, I am so glad to hear the incidence has decreased so dramatically. Years before her tumor appeared I began following a reduced vaccine schedule with my pets. Her tumor appeared 3 years after her last vaccine. It was upsetting to lose her as she was my heart cat, but I am glad some good has come out it.
Dawn July 2nd, 2007 10:08:00 PM
As a cat-owner, I've known for years that over-vaccinating (e.g. every vaccine every year for indoor-only cats) is a bad idea--mine have always been on the 3-year plan. But all the vets I've been to in all the states I've lived in do annual vaccination as the norm, including sending reminders (Fluffy is due for her annual vaccines!). Some won't even do the 3-year rabies (and this in states where it's accepted). These were all good vets otherwise--people I trusted with my cats' health. Why do vets continue to push an aggressive vaccine regimen if they know it does more harm than good?
Brooke July 3rd, 2007 08:05:00 PM
My vet does an intranasal FVCRP vaccine that is good for three years. Why is it in the articles that talk about VAS no one ever mentions this as an option? My vet just recently switched from a 3 year rabies to an annual - they tell me because the annual form they use has tested safer than the 3 year form. I'm no vet but did a search on the internet and found information that seemed to back what they are saying.
Jenny July 4th, 2007 12:33:00 AM
Jenny: I'm not aware of the 1-year vs. 3-year safety dispute you mention. I'd love a resource if you could provide it (not to call you out, just for my own knowledge, OK? email me if you want). It just seems that even one-year rabies vaccines have a more than three-year duration in terms of protection, so the difference should be negligible, especially considering the fact that it's each "injection" that seems to confer an added risk. Having said that, the risk has *apparently* dropped so precipitously (and I still say that guardedly because this is only one study) that it would seem all vaccines are now equivalent with respect to sarcoma risk.
Just in case (as I won't change my practices yet on the basis of one study, I'd rather wait for the Task Force to make its recommendation), intranasals seem to be a great alternative, as are the new trans-dermal vaccines that use no needle.
Dr. Patty Khuly July 4th, 2007 08:03:00 AM
It infuriates me when I run across a vet who still vaccinates between the shoulders and airly states they've never seen VAS. Hence it must not exist I guess. And the whole issue of sticking to the 1 year vaccination schedule despite just plain old common sense about how immunization works and the studies of Schultz and Ford also makes my hair stand on end.
As far as the 1 yr rabies vax for cats, I'm assuming that's PureVax, which doesn't have adjuvants, or at least not the kind that's in the regular vaccines.
CathyA July 7th, 2007 06:45:00 AM
Not quite sure of this 0 incidents per million improvement. How many of this VAS's go unreported. Also, not to sterotype but how many of the demographic cat owners are able to affort the treatment when their cat does develop this.
My wife and I lost our cat Speckles on July 3. The vaccine manufacturers must be held liable. I am not saying file suite just encourage them to improve the quality of their product.
Tkx,
md
mdawkins July 29th, 2007 09:27:00 PM
My cat Jack had the surgery a week ago to remove a cancerous tumor. I was totally in shock when my vet told me his tumor was caused by a vaccine. I'm told the tumor will most likely return but I have bought him some time with the surgery. I just can't believe this has happened. Jack is such a special boy.
J hearn August 2nd, 2007 04:04:00 PM
I don't believe the number of VAS cases has decreased. I belong to a VAS support group and we have on the average of 6 new people a week. I myself loss 2 cats to VAS within 4 years and have spent about 25,000 + to give them a good quaility of life for as long as I could. The monster tumor won. I will never get over this. I think the drug companies and the Vets should be liable for all the expenses. They knowingly and willing injected my cats and never once mentioned the risks to me. I was the one who found out about VAS on the interent and stop the shots. Still 3 years later my Bessy got a tumor. She died and year later my Junior got a tumor he died. Now I live day by day checking my other cats for tumors. Oh , the vets tell you how rare is . Well I had 4 cats and 2 cats got VAS I think that's 50% . The only good news for me is when we get the laws changed. It's known that 1 rabies shot can last at least 7 years + and the other shots are good for the pets life.
As my cat oncologist ask's "what would happen to you if someone vaccinated you every year for your entire life" How about those drug companies ? changing the labels on the rabies vaccine according to each state requirments . The 1 year vaccine is the same as the 3 year vaccine. Oh those poor pets. Something needs to be done . This needs to stop.
Kris
Kristina Hanson August 13th, 2007 07:12:00 PM
I had to put my cat to sleep on 11/25/07 because of VAS. I was told it was the most aggressive form and even by removing her leg it would return and kill her. For 3 months I brought my cat to her vet every week to drain off fluids and purchase more pain meds. My vet explained that she is seeing more and more of this, not less.
Wendy November 26th, 2007 10:31:00 PM
This story is all about damage control. If i were a pet owner i would stay far from the vets office because like hospitals for humans. They are very dangerous
bob samms April 7th, 2008 05:49:00 PM
I have a 5 month old kitten and she just recently got a lump on her back, in the same spot as the vaccine. I want to get it removed but I do not have $1000 to spend at the time. I don't understand how if cats get this reaction we have to pay for it and why they get it (well i understand but it is not fair). Does anyone know about what I can do it get this fixed but not spend all the money I have (just recently graduated college)
Jessica October 1st, 2008 11:49:00 PM
I'm not to sure of how accurate those stats are either. My cat was diagnosed back in november, has had several surgeries...the last being an amputation of his leg. It has been so hard on me and my family as both of my male cats are the spoiled babies of the family. While he was at the vets to have his sutures removed, there were 2 other cats at the hospital coming in for their radiation therapy for VAS. Something needs to be done to help our beloved pets. It makes me so angry that the state tells me that I need to vaccinate my pet every year, but then doesn't regulate the pharmaceutical companies on how they are labelling such vaccinations or take any responsibility when the animals become so ill that their families need to spend thousands of dollars in the HOPES that they can save them and give them the long and loved life that they deserve. I'm pissed off and I want this to stop!!
Tracey December 30th, 2008 01:15:49 PM
Blu ray Ripper
sfd October 5th, 2009 10:27:15 PM
DDos Protection DDos Protection
Mr.cool October 12th, 2009 03:32:56 AM
Thanks.
seo services
Hadi October 23rd, 2009 12:51:30 PM
However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.
tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 08:03:25 PM
Super NEWs! 2009 winter style Timberland boots become the best selling line.Come on! Our Timberland sale is really worth giving attention to.
angel November 23rd, 2009 09:30:58 PM
For Christmas Day is coming,many people have done for the Christmas gifts are carefully selected for the preparation,I tell you ,selecting chrismas gifts unavoidable to choose cheap wholesale clothing,mac cosmetics,gucci shoes,p90x etc,welcome order here and enjoy yourself.
gir7 December 9th, 2009 05:22:16 AM
my frindbuyahandbag,ilikeitsomuch,shetellsmeifiwanttobuy,tohere: replica handbags ,louis vuitton outletbelievemeisbelieveyourself!
EFE December 17th, 2009 12:15:40 PM
Our four year old Siamese, was diagnosed with VAS just a few days after Christmas. I was totally unaware of the risks of the vaccines. The vet that gave him his shots gave it to him in the scruff of his neck where we have since learned is not the recommended place.
The manufacturer of the vaccine has offered to pay $1500 for diagnostics and treatment however from the consults we have had that isnt even going to come close. They also want us to sign a waiver. I'm sure to limit their liability. When i received the case number from the manufacturer he was number 69 for 2010. The case was filed on Jan. 6th. Seems like an awful lot of cases in such a short time.
The surgery is so evasive we are not sure we can put him through it. He is such a loving and sweet boy and the pain he would have to endure just seems cruel. We love him so much and don't want to loose him.
Dawn January 12th, 2010 10:21:25 PM
Links London Necklaces may be the best presents for lovers. Links of London Jewelry is high quality and affordable price here. Cheap Links of london will make you interested and surprised.
Miller January 14th, 2010 08:31:04 PM
Links London Gift store is your best Links of London silver Jewellery online store. We have added numerous Links of London jewellery for our customers at hot price. Select your favorite please!
Deron January 20th, 2010 11:48:04 PM
Add Commment