Family history and risk factors

Hi there. I'm terrible at math, but have posted an article below that explains it pretty well. Family history matters because of genes like BRAC1 for sure, but there's also a correlation because family members seem to have similar habits like overeating, not exercising, and drinking too much - all things that can lead to breast cancer. So if you have healthier habits than your mom, aunts, sisters, etc. your personal risk is lower.

Still, many women "do everything right" but still get breast cancer. It's a mysterious disease in many ways.

https://www.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/family_h...

“No family history" does not take into account all of the women with cancer do not announce it to their relatives other than the ones they actually live with.

Sara, or until very recently, that there was a poor understanding of what the original cancer was. Lots of people said someone had lung cancer or brain cancer or liver cancer, when they actually had another cancer that metastasized

.

There was a day, not that long ago when words like cancer, breasts, ovaries, uterus, and--gasp!--vagina were not uttered publicly. I have a strong history of "female cancer", amongst my ancestors. "Female cancer" could mean cancer of pretty much anything below the waist, so its hard to know what they actually had. I was in high school when First Lady Betty Ford shocked the world by speaking out about her breast cancer and radical mastectomy in 1974. Up to then, almost no public figure discussed tlheir personal difficulties. (She later spoke out about mental health, abortion, sex, and her addiction to alcohol & opiods. She went on to establish the renowned Betty Ford Clinic.)

We truly live in a different world, don't we? Our great-grandmothers could never even imagine the changes we've seen.

mustlovepoodles:

I remember when actress Ann Jillian first went public with her breast cancer in the mid 80s and it was a big thing as there was still a lot of stigma about talking about it. I remember my mother and other family members engrossed in it, which is why it stuck in my 5 or 6 year old mind. I thank women like Betty Ford and Ann Jillian for being vocal about it and helping to make it something we can more openly talk about. I think they have helped save a lot of lives. My great step grandmother developed cervical cancer in her early 20s. She worked for a doctor but knew nothing about it

Despite the fact that I have two gene mutations which assuredly caused my cancer, i do not regret having breasts. I gave nourishment to each of my three children for over a year, or about 4.5 years of breastfeeding. This turned out to be especially important for my youngest, who had multiple disabilities and was a "failure to thrive" baby. Without my breast milk, he would surely had had a more difficult childhood. My "baby" is a strapping 6'3" 23 year old man today, and healthy as a horse. If my trade off is "your breasts will save your baby, but will cause you grievous harm in the end" i would still thank God for my breasts.

We can all thank Betty Ford for bringing breast cancer to the fore-front. She unashamedly talked about self breast exams and the need for mammograms during a time when you couldn't even say "breast" on TV without raising a lot of eyebrows. My elderly relatives were scandalized that the First Lady (!) was talking about her unmentionables in interviews. But as a result of her openness, women starting checking their breasts and seeking out mammograms. Rather than the family doctor discovering BC at stage 4, women were discovering their own cancers at stage 1.

I don't think I am going to be having any babies and I think if a woman doesn't want her breasts that is her choice, but infant formula often lacks certain growth factors that are found in large quantities in a mother's milk. These growth factors are thought to be bad for those with certain cancers (like triple positive breast cancer) to consume in high quantity as they can cause cancer cell proliferation but they also cause the proliferation of good cells and are thought to help infants and young children grow and thrive.

If a mother can't breast feed for some reason, whether it's due to supply issues, or breast cancer/cancer risk, or mastitis/infection or the baby can't suckle properly or has digestion issues, I don't think she should beat herself up over it but if she can breast feed and the baby has no issues being breast fed, then I think that provides more optimal nutrition for the baby.

But I think I would have had a prophylactic bmx when I was younger if I had a better idea of my risk and it was accessible to me.

I don't know what most women think when they look at their breasts but I always thought of mine as liabilities. My thought was always "Is one of them going to give me cancer someday?" Yep.

The problem was the first degree relative clause. There is breast cancer on both side's of my family but I think I got this from my paternal grandmother via my dad...my mother's maternal grandmother and aunt both had it but not my maternal grandmother or mother.

But my dad, by virtue of the fact that he is male, is significant less likely to develop breast cancer even if he carries a breast cancer associated mutation he inherited from his mother. So women who inherit it from their father's side of the family are less likely to have a first degree relative with it but still have the same risk as someone who inherits it from their mother's side and who's mother has had breast cancer.

So 50% of women at risk for familial breast cancer are told their risk is lower than it is and may be blocked from prophylactic mastectomies.

>>I don't know where you are getting the 1 in 20<<

From memory.

Here is some stuff from the internet indicating incidence trends for UK women over more recent history. I expect it would also fairly reflect trends for women in Europe and in our Country for the periods indicated therein.

"Breast cancer incidence rates have increased overall in all broad adult age groups in females in the UK since the early 1990s [1-4] Rates in 25-49s have increased by 17%, in 50-64s have increased by 14%, in 65-69s have increased by 69%, in 70-79s have increased by 32%, and in 80+s have increased by 23%."

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/breast-cancer/incidence-invasive#heading-Two

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/default/files/cstream-node/proj_inc_asr_Bre.pdf

Source: Cancer Research UK

It was about 1 in 10 in the 70s, when women born early in the century had shorter life spans and everyone didn't get screening mammograms.

Current SEER data:

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

No, I'm not. Many of us choose not to share a lot of personal identifying information because these threads are open to web searches You also are posting on a lot of boards and seem to share a lot of info about a variety of subjects. Did you read the article I posted as well?

Cancer is, to a large extent, a disease of aging. When people didn’t live as long and before treatments for heart disease improved many people died of other stuff before they would have developed cancer. Screening now also catches things like DCIS that would never have been diagnosed before, and many of which would have never developed into invasive cancer and caused problems.

MelissaDallas-Wish there was a like button for your last post!