Vaccine-related sarcoma question

Some background: When I adopted my cat, Belle, back in December, she had come to the shelter with day-old kittens, been put in foster care, the kittens adopted out, and then put back in the shelter. When I adopted her she was spayed and given vaccinations. She was shedding like crazy (have since realized that she's a stress shedder), and ended up having a URI after I took her home. Let's just say she was under a lot of stress! Within a couple weeks I realized that she had a pair of small lumps on her shoulder area. When I took her to the vet, I asked them to investigate, and he was convinced that it was most likely vaccination related sarcoma. He measured the big lump (just under a centimeter) and told me what surgery would cost to remove it. I didn't have the money and so we agreed to keep an eye on it for the next month, if it got bigger, I would find the money, if it went away then it was just an inflammatory response of hers.

Over the next month it got smaller and smaller and by the time of her one month re-check, it was gone. Neither myself or our vet could find the lumps, and boy did he search EVERYWHERE. So she is lump free (yay!!), and I check her every week to make sure it's gone.

My question is that when she gets her vaccinations again, is this going to happen again? I'm wondering if all of that stress was a factor in the lumps, or if this is her normal reaction to all vaccinations... I just want to know if anyone else has had this come up before?

If your cat is an indoor only cat you can discuss with your vet whether you really want the rabies vaccine. and if yes consider the non-adjuvaneted 3 year vaccine.  Also it is most commonly given now in the leg so that amputation is an option if it created a sarcoma.  Many people with indoor only cats forgo repeated rabies vaccinations.  Local health laws may require it but many vets are willing not to give it.

The FVRCP vaccine is now recommended in the US every 3 years after the first adult booster, and some evidence suggests that cats remain protected up to 6 years.

Stephen

Cats who have gotten inflammatory lumps as vaccine reactions are more likely to get vaccine-associated sarcomas from later vaccines. So you should consider a limited vaccine protocol. Or if you can get away with it, no more vaccines. If a vaccine becomes necessary, make sure the vet gives it as far down the leg as possible, so amputation would be an option.

Thanks guys, this is really helpful! I just want to do what's best for Belle, and I know that this particular sarcoma is supposed to be really fast-moving. I will make sure and talk with my vet about what you have told me, and I really like the idea of giving the vaccine as far down the leg as possible as a precaution.

stephenq said:

 
...discuss with your vet whether you really want the rabies vaccine. and if yes consider the non-adjuvanted 3 year vaccine.

Click to expand...

Stephen - there is no such product as a non-adjuvanted 3-year rabies vac!

There is only one rabies vaccine product that is not adjuvanted......and, that has a immunity guarantee period of one year only.

However, because it has no adjuvant, it is a safer practice to use this every year.......instead of using an adjuvanted product every three years.  Counter-intuitive ?   YEP!   Safer ?  YEP!

The latest, safest practice though is to vaccinate in the TAIL.

I've posted today in another thread about all this..........you'll find that info here: http://www.thecatsite.com/t/274674/fvcrp-time

It is my understanding that the 1 year non-adjuvanted rabies vaccine IS good for 3 years but the label on the product states that it is guaranteed for only 1 year. At this time there doesn't appear to be a licenced 3 year non-adjuvanted rabies vaccine, as I looked into this. The company that developed the adjuvant-free 1-year vaccine did studies that showed vaccinated cats were still protected 100 percent from rabies 3 years later. However, a problem in the control (non-vaccinated) group of cats (not enough of them died) prevented the USDA from issuing a 3-year license for the vaccine. In a second round of studies, even fewer non-vaccinated cats died, so again, the USDA refused to issue a 3-year license for the product. So the 3-year vaccine stands as a killed strain of rabies virus which means it contains adjuvants.

This is an excerpt from Dr. Pierson's page on vaccinations, in which she mentions the same studies conducted by Merial, makers of the Purevax 1-year Rabies Vaccine :

"There is only one non-adjuvanted rabies vaccine available and that is Merial's PureVax rabies vaccine.  You may think that the PureVax is a clear-cut choice (and it is for me) but note this conundrum: 

The PureVax rabies vaccine only carries a 1-year rating even though 2 studies have shown that it protects cats for much longer.  This is in contrast to the more dangerous adjuvanted rabies vaccines that carry a 3-year rating. Merial conducted 2 well-run studies showing that their PureVax rabies vaccine protected all study participants from a challenge with the rabies virus 3 years later.  However 1 'control' (non-vaccinated) cat in each study did not die from the rabies challenge. Therefore, Meriel was not granted a 3-year license for this vaccine.  Good science shows that this vaccine is protective for at least 3 years but, legally, it is only labeled for 1 year protection".

I stand corrected, wishful thinking on my part perhaps! Thanks for setting me straight!

@stephenq: Yes, I wish it were so as well. I am in an area that unfortunately requires rabies vaccinations. Hopefully at some point there can be only one non-adjuvanted rabies vaccine guaranteed for 3 years. I have read that there are ongoing studies to make this a reality, eventually.

I had a discussion with my vet about the subject of vaccinations, and while rabies vaccine-related sarcoma is possible, it is quite rare (1 in 1000, or 1 in 10,000, depending on the source) and not every cat is going to have a reaction to the rabies vaccine. Sarcoma does not mean cancer, but a tumor that has developed at the injection site. Most often this is benign. The important thing is that these lumps resolve. If they don't, then its important to do a biopsy to determine what kind of cells are there. While the non-adjuvanted vaccine is less risky, it is not risk-free.

Sarcoma does not mean cancer, but a tumor that has developed at the injection site. Most often this is benign.

Click to expand...

Well, not to nitpick, but sarcoma only refers to cancer. If it is benign it's not a sarcoma. Just a lump .

Willowy said:

Well, not to nitpick, but sarcoma only refers to cancer. If it is benign it's not a sarcoma. Just a lump

.

Click to expand...

Yes, I should have specified tumor, not sarcoma. I think the term vaccine-related sarcoma in this case, and probably others, is quite misleading. If the lumps resolved, there were likely not sarcoma to begin with.