I hear your scream. My friend's mother died from lung cancer after breast cancer treatment...but the good news was she was out 20 years from breast cancer. STUPID CANCER!

"10 times more likely" is the relative risk. Only 2.25% of women in the radiation group actually went on to develop a 2nd primary lung cancer, which is approximately 10x the 0.23% who didn't have radiation and got lung cancer. That's 10x <1% when you look at the absolute numbers, which isn't a high risk. Looked at another way, women who had radiation have a 97.75% absolute risk of NOT getting lung cancer. I think those are pretty good odds if radiation is known to reduce your statistical risk of recurrence. A lot of us don't get odds that good for the return of our breast cancer.

"In total, 7,408 women with breast cancer participated in the study, of which 5,695 had undergone radiation therapy and 1,713 had not. In the radiation group, 127 patients (2.25 percent of the total) developed lung cancer, as did four patients (0.23 percent) of the non-radiation group."

The following paragraph from the report is significant:

"Yet the study had limitations that could influence their data, researchers said. In particular, the LHID did not specify its criteria for breast cancer staging. It was unclear whether patients had developed lung cancer on the same side they had received prior radiation. Nor could researchers determine the radiation type, dosage and other factors, like smoking, from the LHID."

Based on the above, plus Solfeo's number crunching, I'm not going to give it another minute's thought. I probably did more damage vising smoky jazz clubs in my 20s than was inflicted by radiation. (Of course, going out to enjoy music was a lot more fun than radition. )

It wasn't much of an analysis, it was right there in the article. And that would be the exception rather than the rule, because most similar articles will only alarm you with the relative risk, and fail to mention the actual number of people affected was very small. That's why I always try to at least glance at the actual studies.

It's always about risks vs. benefits and that equation will be different for every person. If you have a less than 2.25% chance of benefiting from radiation, then the lung cancer risk might be something to at least consider, along with other risk factors. As we know, every treatment comes with its pros and cons and it is up to the individual to determine which risks they are more comfortable with.

If it was me I would have chosen radiation if it had been recommended, hoping that my much healthier lifestyle and new found physical fitness would protect me from a new primary. Damaged cells can heal/die before a certain turning point. I know healthy people do get cancer but I will do everything in my power to improve my odds. That's really all any of us can do.