We are 209,652 members in 82 forums discussing 150,638 topics.

Help with Abbreviations

All TopicsForum: High Risk for Breast Cancer → Topic: Family history and risk factors

Topic: Family history and risk factors

Forum: High Risk for Breast Cancer — Due to family history, genetics, or other factors.

Posted on: Aug 9, 2018 07:51PM

Erinashley19 wrote:

Maybe someone can break it down for me but up until recently I’ve been pretty ignorant of the breast cancer statistics. One thing I’ve learned is that something like 70% of women diagnosed with breast cancer have NO family history. Yet having a close relative with BC is still considered to raise your risk of getting it. What am I missing here because it seems to me that NOT having BC in the family is more of a risk according to that number lol. So what’s the deal? Are they just assuming that if you have family with bc then you potential carry one of the genes like brca1? I’ve gone my whole life being told my chances were so low because of the fact that there’s no cancer in my family anywhere.. Seems that doesn’t really make a difference! (Still haven’t been diagnosed.. Waiting on mammo later this month)

Log in to post a reply

Page 1 of 1 (30 results)

Posts 1 - 30 (30 total)

Log in to post a reply

Aug 9, 2018 08:45PM MelissaDallas wrote:

It is lower than 30%.

From the National Cancer Institute:

Because familial or genetic breast cancers only account for approximately 15% to 20% of all breast cancers, the concern was that women with no maternal history of breast cancer used the absence of breast cancer history to determine their own risk level, thus placing excessive significance on this risk factor in determining their actual risk and negatively impacting their screening mammography patterns.
LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 9, 2018 08:51PM Georgia1 wrote:

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...


Cancer touched my breast so I kicked its ass. Dx 9/3/2017, ILC/IDC, Right, <1cm, Stage IA, Grade 2, 0/1 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 10/10/2017, LCIS, Right, 0/1 nodes Surgery 10/10/2017 Lumpectomy; Lymph node removal: Right, Sentinel Radiation Therapy 11/27/2017 Whole-breast: Breast Hormonal Therapy 1/2/2018 Tamoxifen pills (Nolvadex, Apo-Tamox, Tamofen, Tamone)
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 01:41PM - edited Aug 10, 2018 04:11PM by Erinashley19

what is lower than 30%? Women getting breast cancer that DO have family history?

Frustrating that doctors are still using the “no family history" as a GOOD thing in general for women. In fact that's what my OB just said to me at my appointment and all I kept thinking was “a good thing? Now I'm the 70% category!"

Why do I feel more and more that the numbers, statistics and “facts" are a total bunch of garbage? So many things just do not add up. It's no wonder there are so many undiagnosed, missed diagnosed, confusion etc out there.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 01:54PM - edited Aug 10, 2018 01:54PM by Sara536

“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.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 02:15PM Erinashley19 wrote:

that is very true Sara

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 02:21PM MelissaDallas wrote:

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

.

LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 02:31PM Erinashley19 wrote:

yes, that definitely makes you wonder how many women may have had BC that they never had any clue about.

Does anyone know the numbers of rate increase in breast cancer diagnosis.Did it start to skyrocket in the 60’s? I feel like I had read that somewhere but can’t remember.

What I would really love is to not just see women live longer after breast cancer but to see the number of diagnosed women start taking a serious nose dive. You’d think with so much technology that we could get a handle on all cancer but it’s such a nasty beast...

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 02:47PM - edited Aug 10, 2018 03:15PM by mustlovepoodles

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.

Oncotype 23. Positive for PALB2 & Chek2 gene mutations. My breasts are trying to kill me! Dx 7/20/2015, DCIS/IDC, Right, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 3, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2- Surgery 8/20/2015 Lumpectomy Surgery 9/3/2015 Lumpectomy: Right Chemotherapy 10/19/2015 Cytoxan (cyclophosphamide), Taxotere (docetaxel) Surgery 2/4/2016 Prophylactic mastectomy: Left, Right Surgery 10/19/2016 Hormonal Therapy Femara (letrozole) Surgery
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 03:10PM Icietla wrote:

>>lol.<<

Cancer is not funny.

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 03:32PM WC3 wrote:

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

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 04:10PM Erinashley19 wrote:

I never meant it to be lcietla. My “lol” was more of a “this is so utterly ridiculous and unbelievable lol”. Not a “haha funny” response. I’m sorry if it came across as insensitive

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 04:15PM Erinashley19 wrote:

Yes I feel like breast cancer was so unheard of until recently. Wether people just weren’t talking about it or people just weren’t getting diagnosed with it I don’t know. On one hand it’s great that breast cancer is such a widely talked about issue. It certainly helps those women who are in the midst of it. On the other hand it’s terrifying to feel like breast cancer is literally everywhere bow

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 04:54PM Icietla wrote:

>>Does anyone know the numbers of rate increase in breast cancer diagnosis.Did it start to skyrocket in the 60's? I feel like I had read that somewhere but can't remember.<<

The incidence rate had been increasing long before then, and probably all through human history. As time went on, more people lived for longer, and more would have access to Medical Professionals who could classify their disease/s.

When my Grandmother had breast cancer in the early 1960s, the lifetime risk for women in this part of the World was one in twenty women. When I started having mammograms in the 1980s, it was one in twelve women. Now it is said to be one in eight women. The lifetime incidence rate may be fractionally higher in the Oceania area.

>>What I would really love is to not just see women live longer after breast cancer but to see the number of diagnosed women start taking a serious nose dive. You'd think with so much technology that we could get a handle on all cancer but it's such a nasty beast...<<

Many men also suffer and die from breast cancer.

It is my considered opinion that humans should be mastectomized at birth or in early infancy. There is no biological need for us to have breast tissue, and there is terrible -- even deadly -- risk in having breast tissue.

Would any of us board an airplane for a flight, knowing it had a one-in-eight probability of catastrophic failure?

Knowing it had a one-in-eight probability of catastrophic failure, would the FAA permit that airplane to leave the ground? No.


Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 05:08PM MelissaDallas wrote:

Actually, the breast cancer rate has stayed about the same for many decades. It has not dramatically increased.
LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 05:29PM Icietla wrote:

No worries, Dear.

Smile

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 05:47PM mustlovepoodles wrote:

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.

Oncotype 23. Positive for PALB2 & Chek2 gene mutations. My breasts are trying to kill me! Dx 7/20/2015, DCIS/IDC, Right, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 3, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2- Surgery 8/20/2015 Lumpectomy Surgery 9/3/2015 Lumpectomy: Right Chemotherapy 10/19/2015 Cytoxan (cyclophosphamide), Taxotere (docetaxel) Surgery 2/4/2016 Prophylactic mastectomy: Left, Right Surgery 10/19/2016 Hormonal Therapy Femara (letrozole) Surgery
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 05:59PM Erinashley19 wrote:

the rates of 1 in 20 to 1 in 12 to where we are now at 1 in 8 sure seems to say the likelihood is increasing. Or are you just of the belief that now doctors are more accurately diagnosing it more so now than in years past? I tend to feel the same way about autism numbers. It seems to be more widely understood now, therefor more often diagnosed. That’s a topic for another board though...

While I’m totally on the side of wanting a double mastectomy if I ever find myself with a BC diagnosis (regardless of how severe), I have to say I would have been heart broken not to have been able to feed my babies. That was a treasured time. Mastectomies at birth? That’s a tough idea to run with especially since it’s pretty darn hard to actually get all the tissue. You wouldn’t be guaranteeing anything 100% although I’m sure the number would drastically go sown

Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 06:37PM mustlovepoodles wrote:

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.

Oncotype 23. Positive for PALB2 & Chek2 gene mutations. My breasts are trying to kill me! Dx 7/20/2015, DCIS/IDC, Right, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 3, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR-, HER2- Surgery 8/20/2015 Lumpectomy Surgery 9/3/2015 Lumpectomy: Right Chemotherapy 10/19/2015 Cytoxan (cyclophosphamide), Taxotere (docetaxel) Surgery 2/4/2016 Prophylactic mastectomy: Left, Right Surgery 10/19/2016 Hormonal Therapy Femara (letrozole) Surgery
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 06:37PM MelissaDallas wrote:

I don't know where you are getting the 1 in 20 I have never seen that figureIt has been about 12-13% for decades

LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 07:31PM WC3 wrote:

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.


Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 10:28PM - edited Aug 10, 2018 10:35PM by Icietla

>>Or are you just of the belief that now doctors are more accurately diagnosing it more so now than in years past?<<

I believe that for long times and in many places, many sufferers had no access to any Medical Care, nor to any Medicine other than alcohol. Many would have been secretive about it. Many would have secluded themselves because of the stench they carried. And then, even with access to Doctors, there would have been failures to diagnose. Even now, there are failures to make timely diagnosis, disadvantaging breast cancer patients' prospects for survival.

>>[...] autism numbers. It seems to be more widely understood now, therefor more often diagnosed.<<

Now it is recognized that there is a much broader spectrum (or range) in what we call autism. Before there was this expanded view and recognition, there were shy persons who had to try harder -- to make much more determined effort --; and there were shyer persons who had to try even harder than they; and then there were some persons who seemed very difficult to reach, recognised as autistic.

There is the vaccine issue. I understand there is higher incidence of autism in vaccinated black male youngsters than in otherwise similarly situated youngsters.

Then there is this issue everyone notices and knows about but fairly few talk about -- that men have their own "biological clocks."

https://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=D111US1285G0&p=autism+older+fathers

>>I have to say I would have been heart broken not to have been able to feed my babies. That was a treasured time.<<

Would you have missed your breasts if you had grown up without them? The leading infant formula manufacturers have first-rate R & D behind their infant formula products.

I fed my preemie babies -- the smallest survivor came to me at nine grams body weight -- with 1-mL syringes with teeny cannula fittings. Larger babies -- of sixteen to thirty grams or so body weight -- could have a teeny slim silicone nipple-like sleeve put onto the teeny cannula attachments. Those were treasured times with my Little Ones.

>>Mastectomies at birth?<<

Yes, or in early infancy. In my experience, all else (as to surgery injury) being equal, the pain experience is not of the same degree so much earlier in life.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/24/eight-year-old-utah-girl-breast-cancer-chrissy-turner

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10813345/

>>You wouldn't be guaranteeing anything 100% although I'm sure the number would drastically go [d]own <<

Yes. Mastectomy seems to be the most risk-reducing means we have to deal with this epidemic.

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 10, 2018 11:33PM - edited Aug 10, 2018 11:42PM by Icietla

>>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

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 12:09AM - edited Aug 11, 2018 12:13AM by Icietla

1988 item. Right side column.

https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article-abstract/80/13/1076/911895

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 80, Issue 13, 7 September 1988, Pages 1076–1077, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/80.13.1076-a

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 09:02AM MelissaDallas wrote:

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


LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 11:56AM Erinashley19 wrote:

lcietla thank you. Articles like yours are what I had been seeing. There are several articles out there showing similar findings of the breast cancer rise. Wether it’s due simply to better screening or an actual rise in occurance I don’t know but I do think it’s worrisome. Some articles strongly felt the increases were influenced by birth control and HRT. Seems logical but who knows. I’m grateful my mom turned down taking HRT when she went into early menopause in her 30’s.. I don’t know about other states but I know here in CA our waterways are also full of hormones, antibiotics etc. our fish are full of it, our tap water is full of it and short of intstalling reverse osmosis systems there isn’t a lot that can filter out hormones from the water.

Mellissadallas doyou mind me asking your background? You post on a lot of boards and seem to share a lot of info about a variety of subjects. Are you an OB or surgeon/doctor of some sort? Just curious :)

Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 12:34PM MelissaDallas wrote:

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?

LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 01:15PM - edited Aug 11, 2018 01:27PM by Erinashley19

yes I know it's open to the web (obviously lol). I wasn't trying to offend you I was just wondering. Like djmammo always has a lot of info because of his profession I figured you worked in the field somehow since many of your posts are of facts as you know them.I've commented here and there mostly just observations or personal experiences and A LOT of questions. I'm certainly no professional or claim to know everything.

In regards to your article, yes I read the SEER data actually long before you posted that. I only went back as far as 2005 though. I haven't checked your link yet to see what specifically you posted.

I was looking into rates farther back than the SEER data had. They started in 73 with very few entries. That’s not very long ago. I know not much was known or recorded to the extent it is now the farther back you get but that’s what I was looking into.

Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 02:08PM MelissaDallas wrote:

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.


LCIS, extensive sclerosing adenosis, TAH/BSO & partial omentectomy for mucinous borderline ovarian tumor.
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 04:38PM - edited Aug 11, 2018 04:49PM by Icietla

>>[...] our tap water is full of it and short of intstalling reverse osmosis systems there isn't a lot that can filter out hormones from the water.<<

There is a much more practical and rather low-maintence way, likely to serve that need. It takes only a fairly small space, and it does not require any alteration/s of fixtures in your home. And when you figure the cost (of filtering) per gallon from the expected useful life of the (replaceable) filter/s, the (relative) economy of it is compelling.

Here are BCO search results for discussions indicated to have reference to Berkey water purification systems. You might wish to read through these threads in the (earliest to most recent) order of their posting. For better information, read through the entire discussion threads where these references appear.

https://community.breastcancer.org/posts/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&search_builder%5Bkeyword%5D=Berkey+water&search_builder%5Bauthor%5D=&search_builder%5Bsource%5D=&search_builder%5Bdate_range%5D=&commit=Search

I believe Berkey also produces shower filters.

This links to an article, the principal focus of which is a current war in the Politics of Science. It also lets on to some very troublesome findings as to a chemical widely used in maize production. It is a worthwhile read. Because of the findings indicated in the article, we have since added an additional system -- the Crown Berkey system -- to our household.

https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topics/864448?page=1#idx_1

------

Type 5 food storage grade polypropylene containers are fine for your food storage.

https://www.livestrong.com/article/158674-which-plastic-containers-can-i-safely-use/

Dx 2/12/2016, ILC, Right, Stage IIA, Grade 1, 0/13 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Dx 8/2018, ILC, Stage IV
Log in to post a reply

Aug 11, 2018 06:52PM Lula73 wrote:

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

-Lula Dx 1/2017, DCIS/IDC, Right, 1cm, Stage IA, Grade 1, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+, HER2- Surgery 2/13/2017 Lymph node removal: Sentinel; Mastectomy: Left, Right; Prophylactic ovary removal; Reconstruction (left): DIEP flap; Reconstruction (right): DIEP flap Hormonal Therapy 3/2/2017 Tamoxifen pills (Nolvadex, Apo-Tamox, Tamofen, Tamone) Surgery 11/1/2017 Prophylactic ovary removal Hormonal Therapy 1/2/2018 Femara (letrozole)

Page 1 of 1 (30 results)