Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know there are certain mutations that can increase the risk and as such those that do find out they have them will get them, but some do not, do you know anyone that did find out they had a higher likelihood of breast cancer but still chose not to get a mastectomy and why?
I know there are certain mutations that can increase the risk and as such those that do find out they have them will get them, but some do not, do you know anyone that did find out they had a higher likelihood of breast cancer but still chose not to get a mastectomy and why?
The better question is why would you even *think* about getting a mastectomy if you only have a "higher likelihood" of getting breast cancer? There's absolutely no reason to go to such extremes. I admit the thought did cross my mind to have my breasts removed after being told they were pre-cancerous, but thankfully I didn't go through with it. There was no need whatsoever since I'm able to take care of the problem myself. What I needed at that time was knowledge, which I have since obtained.
Having the BRCA1 or BRCA1 mutations are very good reasons to explore statistics with your doctor. As Angelina Jolie did and we know her decision
Yes, we do, and I think it was totally unnecessary. There are other ways to deal with cancer (including doing your best to prevent it by gentle means). I think she set a very bad example.
I had a lumpectomy for breast cancer in 2008. Testing for the BRCA genes was negative. However, a more refined test several years later revealed two lesser-known genetic mutations. Not long after that, I developed a new and unrelated breast tumor. That time, I had a bilateral mastectomy. If I had known about the mutations at the time of the first cancer, I would have chosen mastectomy rather than lumpectomy at that time.
Whether I would have chosen a prophylactic mastectomy is something I wonder about. I have two young daughters who have not had genetic testing, and I think about whether I would recommend prophylactic mastectomy to them if they unluckily inherited both genes. I would certainly support them unquestioningly if they decided to do so and would never tell them it was "totally unnecessary." I don't want them to go through what I went through, and I don't believe that at this time it is possible to reliably prevent genetically linked cancer through diet, supplements, and similar means.
All that to say that I have the greatest sympathy and understanding for women who have cancer-related genes and decide to go ahead and remove their breasts and/or ovaries, as well as those who decide to take their chances and do what they think they can to prevent cancer.
I had a lumpectomy for breast cancer in 2008. Testing for the BRCA genes was negative. However, a more refined test several years later revealed two lesser-known genetic mutations. Not long after that, I developed a new and unrelated breast tumor. That time, I had a bilateral mastectomy. If I had known about the mutations at the time of the first cancer, I would have chosen mastectomy rather than lumpectomy at that time.
Whether I would have chosen a prophylactic mastectomy is something I wonder about. I have two young daughters who have not had genetic testing, and I think about whether I would recommend prophylactic mastectomy to them if they unluckily inherited both genes. I would certainly support them unquestioningly if they decided to do so and would never tell them it was "totally unnecessary." I don't want them to go through what I went through, and I don't believe that at this time it is possible to reliably prevent genetically linked cancer through diet, supplements, and similar means.
All that to say that I have the greatest sympathy and understanding for women who have cancer-related genes and decide to go ahead and remove their breasts and/or ovaries, as well as those who decide to take their chances and do what they think they can to prevent cancer.
I have empathy for them, as well, since I was once unaware that there have been great strides made in "alternative medicine and knowledge", which makes such steps seem drastic (to me, now that I'm awake). I would also support my daughters no matter what decision they made, but I would certainly make sure they had *all* the information available so that they could make informed choices. Did you actually try all the "alternatives" out there before having your surgeries? Did you take care of all your nutritional deficiencies (vitamin D, iodine, magnesium, selenium, and zinc are the big ones)? Did you eliminate all endocrine-disrupting substances from your life for at least a year or two before deciding? Did you ditch the endocrine-disrupting personal care products?
I don't want to seem unsupportive, since I do hope that you are well; I am just curious as to how you know that making other changes in your life won't go a long way to preventing and treating cancer (even that which is mainly caused by genetics). Genetics actually plays just one part in the development of malignant cancer. There are *many* other factors that would contribute. I really hope that more people start to realize how much they can control--and how much that control can help overcome genetic mutations. Also, there's something called epi-genetics, which is a branch of science that studies our ability to change our genes with thought and intention. It's really fascinating. Bruce Lipton is one of the leading researchers on that topic.
I do hope you will investigate natural medicine further so you can help your daughters make the best choices possible. Your oncologist is *not* going to tell you about these things, and they really are important if you want to avoid the invasiveness of conventional medicine. I really don't think there's a need for preventative mastectomy. I was faced with that decision; I didn't take it, and it turns out that I didn't need to take it. I'm doing just fine now (several years after being told my breasts were pre-cancerous, and then after having confirmation of cancer through testing a while later). Unfortunately, I underwent several mammograms during that period of time while under conventional care, which undoubtedly contributed to the cancer that later proliferated. I wish I had known about thermography back then.
Did you take care of all your nutritional deficiencies (vitamin D, iodine, magnesium, selenium, and zinc are the big ones)?
Yes.
Quote:
Did you ditch the endocrine-disrupting personal care products?
Yes
Quote:
Did you eliminate all endocrine-disrupting substances from your life for at least a year or two before deciding?
No, I did not wait a year or two after being diagnosed with high-grade cancer to make a decision about surgery. I have known people who did that and it never ended well.
I'm fine now, thank you. I'm also happy for you that your situation has gone well.
I have empathy for them, as well, since I was once unaware that there have been great strides made in "alternative medicine and knowledge", which makes such steps seem drastic (to me, now that I'm awake). I would also support my daughters no matter what decision they made, but I would certainly make sure they had *all* the information available so that they could make informed choices. Did you actually try all the "alternatives" out there before having your surgeries? Did you take care of all your nutritional deficiencies (vitamin D, iodine, magnesium, selenium, and zinc are the big ones)? Did you eliminate all endocrine-disrupting substances from your life for at least a year or two before deciding? Did you ditch the endocrine-disrupting personal care products?
I don't want to seem unsupportive, since I do hope that you are well; I am just curious as to how you know that making other changes in your life won't go a long way to preventing and treating cancer (even that which is mainly caused by genetics). Genetics actually plays just one part in the development of malignant cancer. There are *many* other factors that would contribute. I really hope that more people start to realize how much they can control--and how much that control can help overcome genetic mutations. Also, there's something called epi-genetics, which is a branch of science that studies our ability to change our genes with thought and intention. It's really fascinating. Bruce Lipton is one of the leading researchers on that topic.
I do hope you will investigate natural medicine further so you can help your daughters make the best choices possible. Your oncologist is *not* going to tell you about these things, and they really are important if you want to avoid the invasiveness of conventional medicine. I really don't think there's a need for preventative mastectomy. I was faced with that decision; I didn't take it, and it turns out that I didn't need to take it. I'm doing just fine now (several years after being told my breasts were pre-cancerous, and then after having confirmation of cancer through testing a while later). Unfortunately, I underwent several mammograms during that period of time while under conventional care, which undoubtedly contributed to the cancer that later proliferated. I wish I had known about thermography back then.
The personal risk factors that Angelina Jolie has put her lifetime odds of getting breast cancer at about 87%. She has a BRCA1 gene mutation. She lost her mother to ovarian cancer at age 56. She has also chosen to also have her tubes and ovaries removed. Her lifetime risk for ovarian cancer with that mutation would be about 11 to 40%. The breast surgery reduces the lifetime risk of breast cancer by about 90% and removing the tubes and ovaries reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by about 80% and further reduces the risk of breast cancer in BRCA1 (and BRCA2) carriers.
No diet, no supplement, no elimination of "endocrine disruptors" is going to provide the risk reduction that removing the breasts, tubes, and ovaries does in women with the sky high risk of breast cancer that Ms. Jolie had. None of those things is going to fix the situation caused by the defective gene.
Epigenetics is indeed fascinating, but it has nothing to do with changing genes through "thought". With respect to cancer, research about it may eventually result in better treatments.
The risk of an individual woman getting breast cancer from exposure to a mammogram is extremely small and much smaller than the overall risk of having a cancer. There is concern about cumulative radiation exposure due to medical procedures. It is now wise to keep a record of what tests you have had done, and you should be clear about what the indication for each one is. Your primary care doctor should be aware of your lifetime radiation exposure and not add to it if alternative tests are available.
Thermography cannot be used to replace mammography. It misses too many cancers and finds too many things that are not cancer. Ideally we would have a procedure that is less uncomfortable than mammography and involves no radiation. MRI can do it but is too expensive for screening. Newer mammography technology is emerging that gives better images with a lower radiation dose. Pain from mammography can be minimized with good technique by a well trained technician.
Any woman who has been offered prophylactic mastectomy will be carefully counselled concerning her individualized risk profile and personal alternatives.
By the way, if it's cancer, it's malignant. "Malignant cancer" is redundant.
Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
