Can a cancerous cell from outside cause cancer in a healthy person?











up vote
27
down vote

favorite
7












If a cancerous cell enters the body of a healthy person from someone else's blood or something, will that healthy person get cancer? In human beings.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
    – sterid
    Nov 8 at 11:54






  • 2




    @sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 14:11

















up vote
27
down vote

favorite
7












If a cancerous cell enters the body of a healthy person from someone else's blood or something, will that healthy person get cancer? In human beings.










share|improve this question




















  • 1




    Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
    – sterid
    Nov 8 at 11:54






  • 2




    @sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 14:11















up vote
27
down vote

favorite
7









up vote
27
down vote

favorite
7






7





If a cancerous cell enters the body of a healthy person from someone else's blood or something, will that healthy person get cancer? In human beings.










share|improve this question















If a cancerous cell enters the body of a healthy person from someone else's blood or something, will that healthy person get cancer? In human beings.







human-biology cancer hematology






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 7 at 17:33









De Novo

6,151933




6,151933










asked Nov 7 at 9:24









Dhruva

17329




17329








  • 1




    Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
    – sterid
    Nov 8 at 11:54






  • 2




    @sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 14:11
















  • 1




    Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
    – sterid
    Nov 8 at 11:54






  • 2




    @sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 14:11










1




1




Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
– sterid
Nov 8 at 11:54




Yes it can. See livescience.com/…
– sterid
Nov 8 at 11:54




2




2




@sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
– De Novo
Nov 8 at 14:11






@sterid those case involve immunosuppressed patients with end organ failure. This question is about what happens when a healthy person is exposed to cancerous cells
– De Novo
Nov 8 at 14:11












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
33
down vote



accepted











Can a cancer cells from someone else's body cause cancer in a healthy person?




No. Cancer cells from another person cannot cause cancer in a healthy person. The rare cases of transmissible tumors all involve unhealthy or not yet developed persons.



Transmission of tumor cells from one individual to another happens, but is quite rare, and in all cases involves some compromise or reduced development of the immune system. Though tumor cells do metastasize in an individual, when this occurs, tumor seeds must be able to evade the immune system and find an environment suitable for adhesion and replication. Tumor associated cells (non cancerous cells that regulate the microenvironment to make it favorable for growth and replication) are discussed in this seminal paper on cancer biology by Hannahan and Weinberg. There are similarities to infectious processes, but cancer is not measles. Tumor cells don't shed in comparable numbers, aren't adapted for immune escape in a separate host, and don't express appropriate adhesion proteins for portals of entry on a new host or readily induce tumor associated niches in a new host. The cases where person-to-person transmission of cancer via tumor cell inoculation does occur seem to demonstrate more how cancer cells are not infectious agents.




  • Donor-related tumors in transplant patients occur in immunosuppressed patients, but are still rare. The low frequency of transmission seems to be due, in part, to screening. The fact that we see this at all demonstrates the significance of transmission route and immune escape.


  • Maternal-fetal, and in utero twin-twin seem to be exceedingly rare, but have occurred, again, demonstrating the existence, but poor efficiency of transmission. Here, the fetus has an undeveloped immune system. I would not consider this case to be cancer cells causing cancer in a healthy person.


  • Inoculation of volunteers with tumor cells in a problematic series of experiments at Sloan Kettering in the 50s, transplantation of tumor cells into patients with other cancers, resulted in growth, recurrence after excision, and death in some cases. Transplantation into healthy volunteers (yes, they did this) resulted in nodules that spontaneously regressed. This experiment has since been interpreted as evidence for immune system control of transplanted tumor system in healthy individuals, as compared to growth and progression in a receptive niche in a cancer patient.



So person-to-person transmission of cancer cells is rare and requires an immunosuppressed or undeveloped host, or a host who already has cancer. There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission to a healthy individual, and documented cases of failed transmission despite a surgical attempt. This is because, unlike an infectious microbe, in a healthy individual, there is not a suitable receptor for adhesion at an exposed or accessible site, a suitable environment for replication, and adaptations for immune escape by tumor cells in the original host are not effective in a new host.



As a side note, there are contagious cancers in other species, but this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to a question about whether cancer can be transmitted between two humans. Many cancers have transmissible risk factors (e.g., human herpesvirus-8, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papilloma virus 16 and 18, and others)






share|improve this answer























  • @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 18:04










  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:05










  • I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:07






  • 1




    The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
    – amI
    Nov 8 at 21:26






  • 2




    @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 21:59




















up vote
27
down vote













Before OP edited his/her question, it was a little unclear whether the question was only about humans. The following answer is more general than asked as it also considers cancers in non-humans





Most cancers are not transmissible but some are. We call them (clonally) transmissible cancers.



Transmissible cancers



The most famous case of transmissible cancer is the Devil facial tumour disease in Tazmanian devils. Other cases of transmissible cancers exist in Syrian hamsters, dogs (CTVT), and some bivalves. No such transmissible cancer is known to exist in humans.



Transmission of viruses inducing cancers



There are cases of cancer caused by viruses. Those viruses are transmissible and hence it looks like the cancer itself is transmissible. In humans, this is for example the case of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.



Transmission via transplant



Finally, there are cases of cancer that can be transmitted to a new person via a tissue transplant. In humans, Kaposi's sarcoma is (again) an example.






share|improve this answer























  • Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 14:39












  • @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    – Remi.b
    Nov 7 at 15:02












  • Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 15:08










  • The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Nov 7 at 23:12






  • 2




    @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 1:48


















up vote
3
down vote













The answer is no.



From molecular/mechanistic point of view cancer cell itself is not a self-maintaining and independent creature. Even assuming its infinite potential to renew and grow, it still needs constant nutrients supply and tailored microenvironment to survive. Therefore, there is a growing number of attempts to therapeutically target tumour cells niche, see: Joyce JA, Cancer Cell, 7(6), P513-520, 2005 and Belli C. et al., Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Apr;65:22-32. To overcome this limitations, Cells can undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which allows for migration outside the primary location and is crucial to initiate metastases.



Another important issue is the major histocompatibility complex, which allows to identify and eliminate cells, that contains foreign antigenes. Also, constant immune surveillance in immunocompetent individuals leads to elimination of potential cancerogenous cells. Therefore, patients with immunodeficiencies (eg. with AIDS or on prolonged pharmacological immunosuppression) have significantly higher risk of developing infection-related cancers, such as cervical cancer (HPV) or Kaposi Sarcoma (HHV-8).






share|improve this answer






















    protected by Community yesterday



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    33
    down vote



    accepted











    Can a cancer cells from someone else's body cause cancer in a healthy person?




    No. Cancer cells from another person cannot cause cancer in a healthy person. The rare cases of transmissible tumors all involve unhealthy or not yet developed persons.



    Transmission of tumor cells from one individual to another happens, but is quite rare, and in all cases involves some compromise or reduced development of the immune system. Though tumor cells do metastasize in an individual, when this occurs, tumor seeds must be able to evade the immune system and find an environment suitable for adhesion and replication. Tumor associated cells (non cancerous cells that regulate the microenvironment to make it favorable for growth and replication) are discussed in this seminal paper on cancer biology by Hannahan and Weinberg. There are similarities to infectious processes, but cancer is not measles. Tumor cells don't shed in comparable numbers, aren't adapted for immune escape in a separate host, and don't express appropriate adhesion proteins for portals of entry on a new host or readily induce tumor associated niches in a new host. The cases where person-to-person transmission of cancer via tumor cell inoculation does occur seem to demonstrate more how cancer cells are not infectious agents.




    • Donor-related tumors in transplant patients occur in immunosuppressed patients, but are still rare. The low frequency of transmission seems to be due, in part, to screening. The fact that we see this at all demonstrates the significance of transmission route and immune escape.


    • Maternal-fetal, and in utero twin-twin seem to be exceedingly rare, but have occurred, again, demonstrating the existence, but poor efficiency of transmission. Here, the fetus has an undeveloped immune system. I would not consider this case to be cancer cells causing cancer in a healthy person.


    • Inoculation of volunteers with tumor cells in a problematic series of experiments at Sloan Kettering in the 50s, transplantation of tumor cells into patients with other cancers, resulted in growth, recurrence after excision, and death in some cases. Transplantation into healthy volunteers (yes, they did this) resulted in nodules that spontaneously regressed. This experiment has since been interpreted as evidence for immune system control of transplanted tumor system in healthy individuals, as compared to growth and progression in a receptive niche in a cancer patient.



    So person-to-person transmission of cancer cells is rare and requires an immunosuppressed or undeveloped host, or a host who already has cancer. There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission to a healthy individual, and documented cases of failed transmission despite a surgical attempt. This is because, unlike an infectious microbe, in a healthy individual, there is not a suitable receptor for adhesion at an exposed or accessible site, a suitable environment for replication, and adaptations for immune escape by tumor cells in the original host are not effective in a new host.



    As a side note, there are contagious cancers in other species, but this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to a question about whether cancer can be transmitted between two humans. Many cancers have transmissible risk factors (e.g., human herpesvirus-8, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papilloma virus 16 and 18, and others)






    share|improve this answer























    • @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 18:04










    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:05










    • I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:07






    • 1




      The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
      – amI
      Nov 8 at 21:26






    • 2




      @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 21:59

















    up vote
    33
    down vote



    accepted











    Can a cancer cells from someone else's body cause cancer in a healthy person?




    No. Cancer cells from another person cannot cause cancer in a healthy person. The rare cases of transmissible tumors all involve unhealthy or not yet developed persons.



    Transmission of tumor cells from one individual to another happens, but is quite rare, and in all cases involves some compromise or reduced development of the immune system. Though tumor cells do metastasize in an individual, when this occurs, tumor seeds must be able to evade the immune system and find an environment suitable for adhesion and replication. Tumor associated cells (non cancerous cells that regulate the microenvironment to make it favorable for growth and replication) are discussed in this seminal paper on cancer biology by Hannahan and Weinberg. There are similarities to infectious processes, but cancer is not measles. Tumor cells don't shed in comparable numbers, aren't adapted for immune escape in a separate host, and don't express appropriate adhesion proteins for portals of entry on a new host or readily induce tumor associated niches in a new host. The cases where person-to-person transmission of cancer via tumor cell inoculation does occur seem to demonstrate more how cancer cells are not infectious agents.




    • Donor-related tumors in transplant patients occur in immunosuppressed patients, but are still rare. The low frequency of transmission seems to be due, in part, to screening. The fact that we see this at all demonstrates the significance of transmission route and immune escape.


    • Maternal-fetal, and in utero twin-twin seem to be exceedingly rare, but have occurred, again, demonstrating the existence, but poor efficiency of transmission. Here, the fetus has an undeveloped immune system. I would not consider this case to be cancer cells causing cancer in a healthy person.


    • Inoculation of volunteers with tumor cells in a problematic series of experiments at Sloan Kettering in the 50s, transplantation of tumor cells into patients with other cancers, resulted in growth, recurrence after excision, and death in some cases. Transplantation into healthy volunteers (yes, they did this) resulted in nodules that spontaneously regressed. This experiment has since been interpreted as evidence for immune system control of transplanted tumor system in healthy individuals, as compared to growth and progression in a receptive niche in a cancer patient.



    So person-to-person transmission of cancer cells is rare and requires an immunosuppressed or undeveloped host, or a host who already has cancer. There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission to a healthy individual, and documented cases of failed transmission despite a surgical attempt. This is because, unlike an infectious microbe, in a healthy individual, there is not a suitable receptor for adhesion at an exposed or accessible site, a suitable environment for replication, and adaptations for immune escape by tumor cells in the original host are not effective in a new host.



    As a side note, there are contagious cancers in other species, but this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to a question about whether cancer can be transmitted between two humans. Many cancers have transmissible risk factors (e.g., human herpesvirus-8, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papilloma virus 16 and 18, and others)






    share|improve this answer























    • @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 18:04










    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:05










    • I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:07






    • 1




      The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
      – amI
      Nov 8 at 21:26






    • 2




      @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 21:59















    up vote
    33
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    33
    down vote



    accepted







    Can a cancer cells from someone else's body cause cancer in a healthy person?




    No. Cancer cells from another person cannot cause cancer in a healthy person. The rare cases of transmissible tumors all involve unhealthy or not yet developed persons.



    Transmission of tumor cells from one individual to another happens, but is quite rare, and in all cases involves some compromise or reduced development of the immune system. Though tumor cells do metastasize in an individual, when this occurs, tumor seeds must be able to evade the immune system and find an environment suitable for adhesion and replication. Tumor associated cells (non cancerous cells that regulate the microenvironment to make it favorable for growth and replication) are discussed in this seminal paper on cancer biology by Hannahan and Weinberg. There are similarities to infectious processes, but cancer is not measles. Tumor cells don't shed in comparable numbers, aren't adapted for immune escape in a separate host, and don't express appropriate adhesion proteins for portals of entry on a new host or readily induce tumor associated niches in a new host. The cases where person-to-person transmission of cancer via tumor cell inoculation does occur seem to demonstrate more how cancer cells are not infectious agents.




    • Donor-related tumors in transplant patients occur in immunosuppressed patients, but are still rare. The low frequency of transmission seems to be due, in part, to screening. The fact that we see this at all demonstrates the significance of transmission route and immune escape.


    • Maternal-fetal, and in utero twin-twin seem to be exceedingly rare, but have occurred, again, demonstrating the existence, but poor efficiency of transmission. Here, the fetus has an undeveloped immune system. I would not consider this case to be cancer cells causing cancer in a healthy person.


    • Inoculation of volunteers with tumor cells in a problematic series of experiments at Sloan Kettering in the 50s, transplantation of tumor cells into patients with other cancers, resulted in growth, recurrence after excision, and death in some cases. Transplantation into healthy volunteers (yes, they did this) resulted in nodules that spontaneously regressed. This experiment has since been interpreted as evidence for immune system control of transplanted tumor system in healthy individuals, as compared to growth and progression in a receptive niche in a cancer patient.



    So person-to-person transmission of cancer cells is rare and requires an immunosuppressed or undeveloped host, or a host who already has cancer. There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission to a healthy individual, and documented cases of failed transmission despite a surgical attempt. This is because, unlike an infectious microbe, in a healthy individual, there is not a suitable receptor for adhesion at an exposed or accessible site, a suitable environment for replication, and adaptations for immune escape by tumor cells in the original host are not effective in a new host.



    As a side note, there are contagious cancers in other species, but this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to a question about whether cancer can be transmitted between two humans. Many cancers have transmissible risk factors (e.g., human herpesvirus-8, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papilloma virus 16 and 18, and others)






    share|improve this answer















    Can a cancer cells from someone else's body cause cancer in a healthy person?




    No. Cancer cells from another person cannot cause cancer in a healthy person. The rare cases of transmissible tumors all involve unhealthy or not yet developed persons.



    Transmission of tumor cells from one individual to another happens, but is quite rare, and in all cases involves some compromise or reduced development of the immune system. Though tumor cells do metastasize in an individual, when this occurs, tumor seeds must be able to evade the immune system and find an environment suitable for adhesion and replication. Tumor associated cells (non cancerous cells that regulate the microenvironment to make it favorable for growth and replication) are discussed in this seminal paper on cancer biology by Hannahan and Weinberg. There are similarities to infectious processes, but cancer is not measles. Tumor cells don't shed in comparable numbers, aren't adapted for immune escape in a separate host, and don't express appropriate adhesion proteins for portals of entry on a new host or readily induce tumor associated niches in a new host. The cases where person-to-person transmission of cancer via tumor cell inoculation does occur seem to demonstrate more how cancer cells are not infectious agents.




    • Donor-related tumors in transplant patients occur in immunosuppressed patients, but are still rare. The low frequency of transmission seems to be due, in part, to screening. The fact that we see this at all demonstrates the significance of transmission route and immune escape.


    • Maternal-fetal, and in utero twin-twin seem to be exceedingly rare, but have occurred, again, demonstrating the existence, but poor efficiency of transmission. Here, the fetus has an undeveloped immune system. I would not consider this case to be cancer cells causing cancer in a healthy person.


    • Inoculation of volunteers with tumor cells in a problematic series of experiments at Sloan Kettering in the 50s, transplantation of tumor cells into patients with other cancers, resulted in growth, recurrence after excision, and death in some cases. Transplantation into healthy volunteers (yes, they did this) resulted in nodules that spontaneously regressed. This experiment has since been interpreted as evidence for immune system control of transplanted tumor system in healthy individuals, as compared to growth and progression in a receptive niche in a cancer patient.



    So person-to-person transmission of cancer cells is rare and requires an immunosuppressed or undeveloped host, or a host who already has cancer. There are no documented cases of person-to-person transmission to a healthy individual, and documented cases of failed transmission despite a surgical attempt. This is because, unlike an infectious microbe, in a healthy individual, there is not a suitable receptor for adhesion at an exposed or accessible site, a suitable environment for replication, and adaptations for immune escape by tumor cells in the original host are not effective in a new host.



    As a side note, there are contagious cancers in other species, but this doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to a question about whether cancer can be transmitted between two humans. Many cancers have transmissible risk factors (e.g., human herpesvirus-8, hepatitis B and C viruses, human papilloma virus 16 and 18, and others)







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Nov 7 at 14:57

























    answered Nov 7 at 14:36









    De Novo

    6,151933




    6,151933












    • @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 18:04










    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:05










    • I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:07






    • 1




      The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
      – amI
      Nov 8 at 21:26






    • 2




      @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 21:59




















    • @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 18:04










    • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:05










    • I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
      – Chris
      Nov 8 at 18:07






    • 1




      The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
      – amI
      Nov 8 at 21:26






    • 2




      @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 21:59


















    @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 18:04




    @Chris I don't believe I have that privilege (moving other people's comments to chat). Feel free to move the whole series of comments to chat if you think they belong there.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 18:04












    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:05




    Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:05












    I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:07




    I thought about you guys moving to chat. Anyway, the chat link is above.
    – Chris
    Nov 8 at 18:07




    1




    1




    The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
    – amI
    Nov 8 at 21:26




    The last sentence in this answer seems to refute the others. If the introduced cancer cell contains a cancer-causing virus then the answer is 'yes', my cancer cell could give you cancer.
    – amI
    Nov 8 at 21:26




    2




    2




    @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 21:59






    @aml good instinct, but that doesn't happen to be the way it works. The virus is the risk factor, not the cancer. If you want to ask a separate question about that, I'd be happy to answer in detail. I'll just give you an example here: blood exposure could, for example, expose someone to HBV, and they might develop cancer 30 years later, but it would be the extracellular HBV, not any cancerous cell that was responsible. The foreign cancerous cell would be rapidly killed by the healthy host's immune system.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 21:59












    up vote
    27
    down vote













    Before OP edited his/her question, it was a little unclear whether the question was only about humans. The following answer is more general than asked as it also considers cancers in non-humans





    Most cancers are not transmissible but some are. We call them (clonally) transmissible cancers.



    Transmissible cancers



    The most famous case of transmissible cancer is the Devil facial tumour disease in Tazmanian devils. Other cases of transmissible cancers exist in Syrian hamsters, dogs (CTVT), and some bivalves. No such transmissible cancer is known to exist in humans.



    Transmission of viruses inducing cancers



    There are cases of cancer caused by viruses. Those viruses are transmissible and hence it looks like the cancer itself is transmissible. In humans, this is for example the case of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.



    Transmission via transplant



    Finally, there are cases of cancer that can be transmitted to a new person via a tissue transplant. In humans, Kaposi's sarcoma is (again) an example.






    share|improve this answer























    • Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 14:39












    • @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
      – Remi.b
      Nov 7 at 15:02












    • Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 15:08










    • The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
      – Konrad Rudolph
      Nov 7 at 23:12






    • 2




      @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 1:48















    up vote
    27
    down vote













    Before OP edited his/her question, it was a little unclear whether the question was only about humans. The following answer is more general than asked as it also considers cancers in non-humans





    Most cancers are not transmissible but some are. We call them (clonally) transmissible cancers.



    Transmissible cancers



    The most famous case of transmissible cancer is the Devil facial tumour disease in Tazmanian devils. Other cases of transmissible cancers exist in Syrian hamsters, dogs (CTVT), and some bivalves. No such transmissible cancer is known to exist in humans.



    Transmission of viruses inducing cancers



    There are cases of cancer caused by viruses. Those viruses are transmissible and hence it looks like the cancer itself is transmissible. In humans, this is for example the case of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.



    Transmission via transplant



    Finally, there are cases of cancer that can be transmitted to a new person via a tissue transplant. In humans, Kaposi's sarcoma is (again) an example.






    share|improve this answer























    • Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 14:39












    • @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
      – Remi.b
      Nov 7 at 15:02












    • Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 15:08










    • The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
      – Konrad Rudolph
      Nov 7 at 23:12






    • 2




      @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 1:48













    up vote
    27
    down vote










    up vote
    27
    down vote









    Before OP edited his/her question, it was a little unclear whether the question was only about humans. The following answer is more general than asked as it also considers cancers in non-humans





    Most cancers are not transmissible but some are. We call them (clonally) transmissible cancers.



    Transmissible cancers



    The most famous case of transmissible cancer is the Devil facial tumour disease in Tazmanian devils. Other cases of transmissible cancers exist in Syrian hamsters, dogs (CTVT), and some bivalves. No such transmissible cancer is known to exist in humans.



    Transmission of viruses inducing cancers



    There are cases of cancer caused by viruses. Those viruses are transmissible and hence it looks like the cancer itself is transmissible. In humans, this is for example the case of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.



    Transmission via transplant



    Finally, there are cases of cancer that can be transmitted to a new person via a tissue transplant. In humans, Kaposi's sarcoma is (again) an example.






    share|improve this answer














    Before OP edited his/her question, it was a little unclear whether the question was only about humans. The following answer is more general than asked as it also considers cancers in non-humans





    Most cancers are not transmissible but some are. We call them (clonally) transmissible cancers.



    Transmissible cancers



    The most famous case of transmissible cancer is the Devil facial tumour disease in Tazmanian devils. Other cases of transmissible cancers exist in Syrian hamsters, dogs (CTVT), and some bivalves. No such transmissible cancer is known to exist in humans.



    Transmission of viruses inducing cancers



    There are cases of cancer caused by viruses. Those viruses are transmissible and hence it looks like the cancer itself is transmissible. In humans, this is for example the case of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus.



    Transmission via transplant



    Finally, there are cases of cancer that can be transmitted to a new person via a tissue transplant. In humans, Kaposi's sarcoma is (again) an example.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited 2 days ago









    Community

    1




    1










    answered Nov 7 at 14:26









    Remi.b

    56.4k6103185




    56.4k6103185












    • Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 14:39












    • @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
      – Remi.b
      Nov 7 at 15:02












    • Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 15:08










    • The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
      – Konrad Rudolph
      Nov 7 at 23:12






    • 2




      @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 1:48


















    • Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 14:39












    • @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
      – Remi.b
      Nov 7 at 15:02












    • Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
      – De Novo
      Nov 7 at 15:08










    • The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
      – Konrad Rudolph
      Nov 7 at 23:12






    • 2




      @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
      – De Novo
      Nov 8 at 1:48
















    Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 14:39






    Kaposi's sarcoma is not a transmissible cancer. It has a transmissible risk factor, HHV-8, but this is definitely not an example of cancer cells from one person causing cancer in another person. The cancer cells are not the transmissible agent (unlike the transmissible cancers in nonhuman animals). The special cases of Kaposi sarcoma transmission after transplant definitely don't involve healthy recipients. These patients are immunosuppressed, and the cells are, well, transplanted.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 14:39














    @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    – Remi.b
    Nov 7 at 15:02






    @DeNovo You're right. I actually made reference to transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma indirectly via the transmission of a herpesvirus. I clarified that. Thanks. I added the idea of transmission via transplant. If I am not mistaken Kaposi's sarcoma is known to be "transmissible" via both transplant and virus transmission. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    – Remi.b
    Nov 7 at 15:02














    Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 15:08




    Thanks for editing. I'm removing the downvote. I'm not going to upvote because I don't think this directly addresses the question about what happens when cancerous cells enter the body of a healthy person.
    – De Novo
    Nov 7 at 15:08












    The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Nov 7 at 23:12




    The answer states that different cancer types may be transmissible but I think this is wrong, or at the very least misleading. In reality the transmissibility mostly isn't a function of the cancer, it's a function of the host organism. Tasmanien devils have transmissible cancer due to a recent population bottleneck that reduced genetic (and thus immune factor) diversity. Same for transmissible dog cancer cases.
    – Konrad Rudolph
    Nov 7 at 23:12




    2




    2




    @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 1:48




    @KonradRudolph both the immune characteristics of the animal and the cellular behavior and genetic characteristics of the neoplasm are important here. I think it is correct to say that only a few types of cancers are transmissible. Tasmanian devils have a wide variety of neoplasms, but only DFT is transmissible.
    – De Novo
    Nov 8 at 1:48










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    The answer is no.



    From molecular/mechanistic point of view cancer cell itself is not a self-maintaining and independent creature. Even assuming its infinite potential to renew and grow, it still needs constant nutrients supply and tailored microenvironment to survive. Therefore, there is a growing number of attempts to therapeutically target tumour cells niche, see: Joyce JA, Cancer Cell, 7(6), P513-520, 2005 and Belli C. et al., Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Apr;65:22-32. To overcome this limitations, Cells can undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which allows for migration outside the primary location and is crucial to initiate metastases.



    Another important issue is the major histocompatibility complex, which allows to identify and eliminate cells, that contains foreign antigenes. Also, constant immune surveillance in immunocompetent individuals leads to elimination of potential cancerogenous cells. Therefore, patients with immunodeficiencies (eg. with AIDS or on prolonged pharmacological immunosuppression) have significantly higher risk of developing infection-related cancers, such as cervical cancer (HPV) or Kaposi Sarcoma (HHV-8).






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The answer is no.



      From molecular/mechanistic point of view cancer cell itself is not a self-maintaining and independent creature. Even assuming its infinite potential to renew and grow, it still needs constant nutrients supply and tailored microenvironment to survive. Therefore, there is a growing number of attempts to therapeutically target tumour cells niche, see: Joyce JA, Cancer Cell, 7(6), P513-520, 2005 and Belli C. et al., Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Apr;65:22-32. To overcome this limitations, Cells can undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which allows for migration outside the primary location and is crucial to initiate metastases.



      Another important issue is the major histocompatibility complex, which allows to identify and eliminate cells, that contains foreign antigenes. Also, constant immune surveillance in immunocompetent individuals leads to elimination of potential cancerogenous cells. Therefore, patients with immunodeficiencies (eg. with AIDS or on prolonged pharmacological immunosuppression) have significantly higher risk of developing infection-related cancers, such as cervical cancer (HPV) or Kaposi Sarcoma (HHV-8).






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        The answer is no.



        From molecular/mechanistic point of view cancer cell itself is not a self-maintaining and independent creature. Even assuming its infinite potential to renew and grow, it still needs constant nutrients supply and tailored microenvironment to survive. Therefore, there is a growing number of attempts to therapeutically target tumour cells niche, see: Joyce JA, Cancer Cell, 7(6), P513-520, 2005 and Belli C. et al., Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Apr;65:22-32. To overcome this limitations, Cells can undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which allows for migration outside the primary location and is crucial to initiate metastases.



        Another important issue is the major histocompatibility complex, which allows to identify and eliminate cells, that contains foreign antigenes. Also, constant immune surveillance in immunocompetent individuals leads to elimination of potential cancerogenous cells. Therefore, patients with immunodeficiencies (eg. with AIDS or on prolonged pharmacological immunosuppression) have significantly higher risk of developing infection-related cancers, such as cervical cancer (HPV) or Kaposi Sarcoma (HHV-8).






        share|improve this answer














        The answer is no.



        From molecular/mechanistic point of view cancer cell itself is not a self-maintaining and independent creature. Even assuming its infinite potential to renew and grow, it still needs constant nutrients supply and tailored microenvironment to survive. Therefore, there is a growing number of attempts to therapeutically target tumour cells niche, see: Joyce JA, Cancer Cell, 7(6), P513-520, 2005 and Belli C. et al., Cancer Treat Rev. 2018 Apr;65:22-32. To overcome this limitations, Cells can undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition, which allows for migration outside the primary location and is crucial to initiate metastases.



        Another important issue is the major histocompatibility complex, which allows to identify and eliminate cells, that contains foreign antigenes. Also, constant immune surveillance in immunocompetent individuals leads to elimination of potential cancerogenous cells. Therefore, patients with immunodeficiencies (eg. with AIDS or on prolonged pharmacological immunosuppression) have significantly higher risk of developing infection-related cancers, such as cervical cancer (HPV) or Kaposi Sarcoma (HHV-8).







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 7 at 15:21

























        answered Nov 7 at 15:16









        hibernicah

        3816




        3816

















            protected by Community yesterday



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            Popular posts from this blog

            Guess what letter conforming each word

            Port of Spain

            Run scheduled task as local user group (not BUILTIN)