Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Double mastectomy ‘doesn’t boost chance of surviving cancer’: Women who have less drastic surgery…
Daily Mail (UK) ^ | 18:49 EST, 2 September 2014 | Sophie Borland

Posted on 09/03/2014 1:15:41 AM PDT by Olog-hai

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last
To: Olog-hai

I don’t know what I would do in AJ’s situation, but I’d seriously consider all options.

In my own situation, I chose to get adjuvant chemotherapy, though it was considered optional since they had removed all the known cancer when they took the lung. Chemo is pretty rough, and offers lifetime side effects. I’m pretty sure a double mastectomy would have been easier on my body.

I took the chemo, not to eliminate any known cancer, but to reduce the chances of the cancer returning. They didn’t tell me how much it would reduce the chances, and I didn’t ask. If it reduced the chances at all, it was worth it.

When I was researching options for treatment, one option offered would have allowed me to keep the lung. I chose the treatment that offered the best chance of survival, which meant removing the lung. I chose to give up the lung, to improve my odds. I think I would probably use the same reasoning if it involved breasts instead of lungs. Given the option, I’d much rather give up both breasts and keep both lungs, but that’s not how it works.

It’s one thing to speculate on what you would do, it’s quite another to face the fact that you are going to die soon, and then after you’ve come to terms with that, you’re offered a chance live longer. It has a profound effect on what you think is important, and what you can live without.

What wouldn’t I sacrifice for a longer life? Important things, like family and faith. I’ve sacrificed trivial things like a lung, waist-length red hair, a heart that beats every time it’s supposed to, a rib cage that doesn’t collapse when I turn the wrong way, teeth that don’t hurt when I mix hot and cold foods, a digestive system that doesn’t make me carry a mental map of restrooms everywhere I go, the ability to go more than ten hours without a nap, and the list goes on. I still have my breasts, and they still look pretty good if I do say so myself, but I could live without them. Breasts are nice, but they just aren’t worth dying for, no matter how pretty they are.


41 posted on 09/04/2014 5:54:43 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Gettin' old ain't for sissies. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes

I don’t think the study takes into account any genetic testing or factors, and those would weight the decision one way or the other. But what the summary does imply is that they are comparing apples to apples. They found extra cancer in 1-3% of the amputated breasts. That is probably what one would expect to find in a ramdom sample of amputated breasts. The study shows that amputation has no effect in most cases (probably all except the ones with genetic predisposition).


42 posted on 09/04/2014 6:16:55 AM PDT by palmer (This comment is not approved or cleared by FDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

I know nothing about her faith, but I do understand her decision, since she got a positive on the BRAC 1 and 2 test.
I got a negative. So I didn’t have a mastectomy, two years ago. Now I have cancer again then. But armed with the knowledge that I am not genetically predisposed to breast cancer, I’m still keeping my left breast. And I’m keeping it unless and until I get cancer in it!!!


43 posted on 09/04/2014 6:17:54 AM PDT by Shimmer1 (Nothing says you are sad that someone died like looting local places of business!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palmer

There’s more to the study and the JAMA article. The Daily Mail article is putting out half the story and not making the information clear enough. Plus, there are many, many other factors - such as cancer stage, placement of tumor, number of tumors, pathology, genetics, etc. - that sometimes necessitate a single or double removal. As for finding cancer in 1-3% of the “healthy” tissue removed, the whole point of having prophylactic surgery is to have it removed before cancer develops. So, there shouldn’t be cancer on the healthy side at all.


44 posted on 09/04/2014 11:15:40 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mazda77; Olog-hai

Guys, this is not a “Hollywood weirdo” kind of thing. Long before AJ, many other women already were making the same decision - prophylactic surgery - based on genetic testing. AJ was not the first. You only heard about it for the first time because she’s so famous.

Furthermore, believe me, oncologists recommend (even push) genetic testing on women with family history, and then they recommend prophylactic surgery to BRCA-positive patients. They’ve been recommending it for years. I’d even say that most oncologists push that surgery.

Of course, the patient can refuse to have it done. It’s a personal decision, and it’s not for everyone. It’s a brutal decision not taken lightly. But it’s a perfectly rational and intelligent decision. To say otherwise is just as wrong as saying that women who don’t make the same choice are being irrational.

For the record, I’m not a big fan of AJ. Then again, I’m even less of a fan of guys who talk as if they know something about what women should do about breast cancer. Notice we’re never on prostate cancer threads talking about what men should or shouldn’t do. LOL. I’m just sayin’.


45 posted on 09/04/2014 11:53:23 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
There are people who adapt well and even gain psychological benefits from what they believe is greatly reducing their cancer risk whether or not it is. Prophylactic medicine is usually based on bad statistics or lawyer medicine, not science. The genetic predisposition is probably overrated as well but I can understand doing amputation for that reason. It is a very individual decision based on the objective factors you mentioned but subjective factors for better or for worse.

So, there shouldn’t be cancer on the healthy side at all.

There's always abnormal cell growth somewhere. They will count DCIS and cysts and other abnormalities that isn't really cancer and does not "turn into" cancer.

46 posted on 09/04/2014 3:20:45 PM PDT by palmer (This comment is not approved or cleared by FDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tired of Taxes
Notice we’re never on prostate cancer threads talking about what men should or shouldn’t do.

Men were pushed into ineffective PSA tests but although they were ineffective, they were easy. The prostrate exams are not fun (I have heard). Men (and also women) get the invasive kinds of colonoscopies where they slice and dice "polyps" that are more than 99% benign. Personally I am going to think long and hard about that one before letting someone subjectively analyze my polyps through a scope. I like my polyps (if they are benign), no reason to remove them. Removal is mainly driven by the pervasive myth that cancer follows some progression starting with abnormal growth. But it does not.

47 posted on 09/04/2014 3:27:29 PM PDT by palmer (This comment is not approved or cleared by FDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: palmer

Actually, many men with very early stage prostate cancer opt to have surgery, too. It’s not just about the PSA test.

Like you, I’m cautious about medical testing and medicines myself. I used to mistrust them altogether. Once you’ve been diagnosed, though, you begin to realize it’s a life-or-death situation. As much as a person might not want to have surgery or testing or medication, sometimes we have to concede to those things if we want a chance at a long life.


48 posted on 09/04/2014 7:04:55 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: palmer

It’s not about psychological benefits. It’s not an irrational fear. The statistics show the risk is much higher than the general population for patients who have certain genetic mutations.

And, again, doctors are telling women without cancer who test positive for genetic mutations to undergo this surgery. They’re pushing it. That doesn’t mean we have to follow their advice. But it does mean that women aren’t coming up with the idea on their own. Oncologists have been recommending preventive surgery for a long time to these patients - long before a famous actress underwent the same surgery.

As for DCIS, I agree that sometimes it doesn’t become invasive cancer. But, at other times, it does. My pathology report showed a mixture of IDC and DCIS. So, very likely it started as DCIS and then turned invasive.


49 posted on 09/04/2014 7:24:04 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson