Hereditary Cancers: Prevent Them With Surgery?

Reader Comments
Back to article

Can you direct me to this article?
"Turns out that these drastic measures work better than monitoring for both cancers, and removing the ovaries leads to longer lives than does screening for early detection, according to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association."
Thanks!

Reba of AZ 11:33AM September 16, 2010

First: Nowhere in the article (or in any research of or public health guidelines that I, a public health researcher, have read) does anyone advocate f0rced sterilization of women who carry a genetic mutation that causes cancer. It very clearly states in the article that high-risk women SHOULD CONSIDER having their ovaries removed "when they're no longer interested in childbearing". So, have your children...and then if you want to take the risk, don't remove your ovaries...if you'd rather be safe than sorry, then remove them. It's your choice. It's not as if anyone is injecting BRCA mutations into Jewish women as a form of genocide...it's no one's fault that they happen to have a higher prevalence of the mutation. I'm sorry but...that is probably the most ridiculous comment I have ever read in regards to breast cancer prevention and BRCA testing. Where were you educated? Or were you?
Second: oh that definitely makes sense. Yes, all the doctors, researchers, and genetic counselors are DEFINITELY sexist. Instead of helping women prevent cancer, they should just wait around until enough research is done and enough feathers are ruffled to change policy regarding exposure to certain chemicals. That's ALMOST as ridiculous as the genocide comment. I'm sorry, but if I carry a mutation that puts me at high-risk for ovarian cancer, I would be indebted to the doctors who would do all possible to help me live a long life and be around for my children. Not some doctor who says, "Well, you know...there are toxins in the air so you may as well just wait and see what happens." The BRCA mutations have nothing to do with environmental toxin exposure; they are hereditary.
You're absolutely right. The environment is filled with toxins and poisons and everyone around us is trying to kill us. Watch out, because you're computer could be emitting poisonous radiation as you type. I've got news for you: toxins are everywhere...even in "nature". Even if you shut yourself in your organic hut and never come out, you're still exposed to potentially harmful compounds/microbes. So my suggestion is this: get a life and go get treatment for your paranoid personality type.

LR of GA 10:11AM September 02, 2010

When I was 50 (1992), I had a prophylactic hysterectomy. My mother died at age 53 from ovarian cancer, and I feared that I might be following in her footsteps. This was the year that Gilda Radner died from ovarian cancer, so there was a lot of press about the disease. So, I went to my doctor and we agreed I should have the hysterectomy since I had already begun menopause.
Fast forward 9 years and I was diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer. I had a lumpectomy (plus chemo and radiation), but decided to see a genetic counselor since my doctor recommended it. I was an interesting time...getting in contact with relatives I hadn't seen since I was a child,and researching the best I could about my family's history of cancer. Being Jewish, I was told I had a higher chance of having the gene. After much research and counseling, I finally decided to take the test and I was positive for the BRCA1 mutation. I had a bilateral mastectomy in 2006. The surgeon found a precancerous growth in my other breast. He said, if you ever had any doubts about doing this...you can be sure you made the right decision. i know it has saved my life!

Rona Cole of CA 12:47AM September 02, 2010

Recognizing that a womans ethnic heritage affects her genetic make-up and therefore her risk of certain diseases, is NOT genocide, or discrimination in a negetive way. These recommendations are pretty drastic, and I'm not SURE that they are warranted; thank God I am not in a place where I have to decide whether or not to take this advice, but your argument is frankly ridiculous. Admiting that not everyone is the same GENETICALLY, and therefore faces different risks and decisions is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from making a value judgement on the worth of any particular human being. You are completely entitled to any stupid opinion you choose to hold, but any public discussion or argument should also center on reality and reason. Genocide is a serious and ugly subject, and this is not it!

not-so-shy Di of NY 11:25PM September 01, 2010

Recognizing that a womans ethnic heritage affects her genetic make-up and therefore her risk of certain diseases, is NOT genocide, or discrimination in a negetive way. These recommendations are pretty drastic, and I'm not SURE that they are warranted; thank God I am not in a place where I have to decide whether or not to take this advice, but your argument is frankly ridiculous. Admiting that not everyone is the same GENETICALLY, and therefore faces different risks and decisions is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from making a value judgement on the worth of any particular human being. You are completely entitled to any stupid opinion you choose to hold, but any public discussion or argument should also center on reality and reason. Genocide is a serious and ugly subject, and this is not it!

not-so-shy Di of NY 11:23PM September 01, 2010

I am BRCA2 and just had a mastectomy to prevent cancer....I pray it saves my life

bethanie brown of SC 10:46PM September 01, 2010

"Voluntary" sterilization. Implementation is based on a woman's submission to the authority of the medical doctor (and his appeal to her fear of death). 'Jewish women with Eastern European roots should get tested.' If testing is recommended to them, is sterilization encouraged? Sterilize the Jews?!?!?! Holy mother of god! They're mutilating and sterilizing women, and openly admitting the genetic motive! If that's not whitewashed genocide, nothing is.

Me of IA 4:49PM September 01, 2010

Our environment (air, soil, water) is filled with cancer causing toxins. Breast milk tested in 1976 was found to be unsafe to put on shelves---formula was safer than nature...and that was nearly 35 years ago! A child who breast feeds get their LIFETIME limit of dioxins by 6 months of age. Fish and wildlife numbers are dying off because of sterility due to to chemicals in the environment. We're confronted daily with the new statistics about the ever increasing numbers of cancer occurrence.
What do we do? Tell women to maim and alter their bodies. God forbid we should look at our destructive policies and practices and demand that they are changed for our own benefit. God forbid we should examine the holistic effects drugs, chemicals, etc are going to have BEFORE we pump them into bodies.
EDUCATE YOURSELVES!! The corporations DO NOT have your interest in mind. The medical institution DOES NOT have your interest in mind. Your government DOES NOT have your interest in mind! (and there's plenty of evidence to support that argument....this isn't just one crackpot theory).
Read: "Man-Made Breast Cancers" by Zillah Eisenstein

B of WI 4:27PM September 01, 2010

The quotes is the article about "DRASTICALLY" reducing the risk of cancer by having life altering surgery seem out of place. 3% on Breast Cancer and 7% on Ovarian cancer are not large numbers to be heralding some huge breakthrough in prevention. Claiming 100% prevention on some one who has no Breasts or Ovaries is a twist for sure. I certainly hope this is looked at much deeper before it is accepted across the board as the answer.

A Zigon of TX 3:34PM September 01, 2010