Were you Pregnant 2 years prior to your diagnosis?

Pure

Were you pregnant or pregnanat 2 years prior to your diagnosis? Did you doctor ever tell you that you had a great chance of reoccurrence due to that fact?

I read this article in the NY times that at first said survival times, reoccurence rate, etc were the same for pregnant women as a non prego women but then the article goes on to say that a women who has had a pregnancy in the past 2 years has a 50% higher reoccurence rate.

Anyone hear this?

apple

no... but i did read/hear that pregnancies later in life (I had my last right before I turned 44) contributes to the incidence of breast cancer.

KerryMac

I did read something similar, and freaked a bit. But then my lovely husband did a bit of reading around for me, and found out the fact of being pregnant doesn't affect prognosis at all - it is just the cancer is usually found at a later stage when you are pregnant or breastfeeding. So prognosis is generally worse, becauwe you are already at a later stage. But your prognosis is the same as a non-pregnant/breastfeeding person at the same stage.

In my case my dx was delayed because I was breastfeeding - if I hadn't been breastfeeding i would have been dx at stage 2 , the fact that I was misdiagnosed because of breastfeeding made me stage 3 - so my prognosis is worse. But it is worse because I am Stage 3 - I have the same prognosis as anyone else who is Stage 3. Does that make sense??

Having babies over the age of 30 or 35 does increase your risk slightly, but breastfeeding lowers that risk to about the same as early pregnancies. However that kind of backfired on me a bit - if i hadn't been breastfeeding, I would have been dx earlier. I even remember thinking to myself "well, I'll never get BC now," because I breastfed my kids for so long. Don't you love it when life sort of slaps you in the face like that. 

NancyD

Pure, I hadn't heard this but I think what Kerry said about it being misdiagnosed is probably the reason pregnant women who have breast cancer are usually at a later stage.

Kerry, OK, given those statements, having had my two children at 35 and 40 raised my bc risk, but breastfeeding them lowered it again? I wasn't diagnosed until I was 56, so maybe it bought me some time.

Mary, I don't think it's any late-in-life pregnancy. I think it's a first pregnancy late in life that raises the bc risk. 

apple

"Mary, I don't think it's any late-in-life pregnancy. I think it's a first pregnancy late in life that raises the bc risk. "

I think you're right.  My onc told me the risk of breast cancer was slight yet significant.. she is an odd communicator tho.

lexislove

Yes.

I found my "lump" when my daughter 15 months old. I was 29.

I do not feel that it affects my prognosis....but I do feel, unfortunatly, that my pregnancy played a key role in developing BC. Wacky hormones ect...

Thats just how I feel my onc says it is definatly a possibility.

bejuce

KerryMac, seems like we have similar stories.  I too had a delayed diagnosis as I was breastfeeding my 3rd and told I had nothing to worry about. I too felt I would never get breast cancer because of all the breastfeeding I had done.  My 3rd was born in 06 right before I turned 36 and my breast cancer was found (by me) in '08 but I was diagnosed in '09....

Pure, I concur with the what ladies above have said - the "worse" statistic is because women who had been recently pregnant or breastfeeding are usually diagnosed at a later stage.

KerryMac

Oh Marcia, I had no idea! We have the same story - I found mine in '07, when my son was 1 1/2. I had an ultrasound and everything, and was told I had a galactocele (sp?) and it was nothing to worry about. They said there was no point draining it, as I was still b/feeding, and it would just fill up again. So, I went merrily on my way, and kept breastfeeding for another year. It was only when I weaned and the lump didn't go away that I got concerned. I still have not got over the fact that I stuck cancer in my sons mouth every day......

Now, in retrospect, I think I was naive to not have requested a biopsy, but I knew nothing then. I do remember thinking at the time, "well, if they were at all concerned they would have done further testing". I had no idea that they could get it wrong.

bejuce

I know, tell me about it! I had 4 doctors tell me I had nothing to worry about...

Starting with my OB, who, on a routine visit in March '08, felt my breasts and noted that my right was more "engorged" than the left, especially on the upper outer quadrant.  I questioned him how I could be engorged when I was just breastfeeding at night at that point.  He shrugged me off. 

In July '08, I found a swollen lymph node on my right armpit - same side as the so-called engorgement.  Went to my family doctor, who requested an ultrasound (just of the armpit and not of the breast - she told me I was still breastfeeding and wouldn't show anything!) and upon the finding of a "benign-looking swollen lymph node (2.5cm!)" was given a paper that said roughly come back for a baseline mammogram when you're 40.  I talked to her on the phone and she told me it was "unrelated to the breast" and was most likely due to an infection (which I had no signs of).

I requested to see a surgeon, who didn't know what to do, recommended against a biopsy or surgery to remove the lymph node (made it sound like the most difficult thing in the world to do, he was young and didn't know anything) and consulted with a breast surgeon and the clinic's specialist on breasts, who told me to come back in 3 months.  This was in July '08. I weaned my son right then, went back in October for a repeat ultrasound (again just of the armpit as they still wouldn't image my breast), which revealed the same benign-looking swollen lymph node but at 2.1 cm.  Was told again to come back in 3 months.  Only in January '09 did the surgeon decide to request a mammogram/MRI, which I could only schedule in February.  

Sorry for getting off-topic and venting, but as you can see, it's no wonder I still get angry at this. Worse is, my story is not at all unique.

Leah_S

You hear a lot about "risk factors" but they're the same as other statistics, sometimes they work and sometimes not.

I had my first baby at age 26, had 6 kids (last at age 42), breastfed for a LONG time. I had my first period at 13, menopause at 51, don't drink, don't smoke, never obese.

Dx at age 57, either Stage II or Stage III depending on which site you read. Didn't ask my onc because I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Leah

JacquelineG

My story is similar:  I had my 3rd child in 06, breastfed for a while (almost 15 months) and wasn't diagnosed until 08, Stage 3 by then. I was actually advised by my OB to get a baseline at 36 but then got pregnant, had a miscarriage, got pregnant again and then had my 3rd, so with breastfeeding, I didn't get the mammogram until I was 39. At the beginning I was very hard on myself for this, but now I'm trying to look forward. Thank goodness for all the Stage 3 ladies who are out 5, 6 7+ years and encourage us every day!

weety

Found my lump when I was breastfeeding my 6 month old (third child at age 38).  Luckily, the doc I saw took it seriously and did follow-up with a mammogram, ultrasound and biopsy.  Surgery took place the next week.  It only took 3 weeks from discovery to surgery.  That said, I think had I not been breastfeeding at the time, I would have noticed my lump even sooner.  I am usually not even quite an "A" cup,and there would have been no where (and I mean NO WHERE) for it to hide--the breastfeeding made my breasts fuller and hid the lump better.  My ob-gyn said there is a "transient" high risk period after a full-term pregnancy.  Wish I had known--I might have checked the breasts sooner.

jezza

I was pregnant 2 years before dx. Found my lump when son was 16 months old.

Am 18 years NED.

jezza

Pure

Thanks everyone for your responses! I appreciate the feedback!

gfbaker

I found my lump when my daughter was 10 months old. I also had a son and they are only 19 months apart, so I was barely over the first pregnancy when I was knocked up again. I recently asked my gyno about this, and he said that pregnancies so close wouldn't cause cancer to happen, but perhaps sped up the growth (ER?PR+).

KerryMac

I am convinced mine was there when I was breastfeeding my first - I got mastitis in the cancer place a couple of times when she was a newborn. That is why when I was told it was a blockage I though it made sense. A collegue of my husbands was dx when she finished breastfeeding too, she was told the hormones could have played a role.