Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy

[Dream]

Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman," Jolie wrote. "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."

Jolie's mother, actress and producer Marcheline Bertrand, died of ovarian cancer in 2007 at the age of 56. Jolie is 37 years old.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/showbiz/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy/index.html

This is quite shocking. It kind of makes you realize how unexpected things in life can turn out. Not even one of the biggest movie stars in the world is immune to the threat of cancer. I wish her well and a speedy recovery.

 

[Garak]

Not even one of the biggest movie stars in the world is immune to the threat of cancer.

You just figured that out now?

 

[Pavonis]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

 

[gblews]

My admiration for this woman grows and grows.

 

[Seven of Five]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

Probably because she's had first hand experience of how it affected her mother's, and therefore the rest of her family's lives. Taking preventative action is very brave choice, and will probably help her deal with the issues she faced in her past. Hereditary illness is a bitch whether you have it, or have the potential to have it, not only because getting ill sucks, but also because you can pass it on to your own offspring.

My family hasn't had cancer, but we've suffered with the hereditary Huntington's disease. It's a horrible, debilitating illness that has no cure, and so continues through the generations. I think people who have it, or have the potential to have it, could have some 'drastic' procedure to reduce the risk, they'd be queuing up for it.

 

[Sci]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

 

[Pingfah]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

An 87% chance of a potential threat.

Cancer isn't something you just let happen and hope it'll be OK if you have a choice. Pre-emptive action in these sorts of cases is far from unusual these days.

 

[Forbin]

I fully - er, support - her decision.

 

[teya]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

Because women with the BRCA mutations have a very poor prognosis. The disease hits when they're young (Jolie's mom was 46) and the younger a woman with a BRCA mutation is at diagnosis, the worse her prognosis.

A retrospective study in Sweden indicated that women with a BRCA mutation had a 59 percent mortality rate at 10 years. Other studies have corroborated that finding.

Her potential threat was 87 percent. I wouldn't question her choice.

 

[Samurai8472]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

She eliminated the chances NOW

Not later. Not when/if she had the cancer but NOW

Waiting on these things usually isn't a good idea.

 

[Dorian Thompson]

87 percent? Christ, no wonder she did it.

 

[1001001]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

Because women with the BRCA mutations have a very poor prognosis. The disease hits when they're young (Jolie's mom was 46) and the younger a woman with a BRCA mutation is at diagnosis, the worse her prognosis.

A retrospective study in Sweden indicated that women with a BRCA mutation had a 59 percent mortality rate at 10 years. Other studies have corroborated that finding.

Her potential threat was 87 percent. I wouldn't question her choice.

Correct.

This kind of genetic screening is leading to more and more of these kind of surgeries.

Anyone who questions her decision, just think of it this way: what would you want your wife to do?

 

[wissaboo]

apparantly she is also planning on having her ovaries removed

 

[teya]

apparantly she is also planning on having her ovaries removed

Also a choice I wouldn't question. A friend's mom got had breast cancer in her 50s and then had surgery & 2 years of chemo for ovarian ca at 65. She's BRCA1 positive. My friend is wrestling with her choices now.

 

[Gaith]

<comic>

That is awesome. And now I feel very tempted to refer to bosom units as "bombs" in the future, even way out of context.

 

[Pavonis]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

Because women with the BRCA mutations have a very poor prognosis. The disease hits when they're young (Jolie's mom was 46) and the younger a woman with a BRCA mutation is at diagnosis, the worse her prognosis.

A retrospective study in Sweden indicated that women with a BRCA mutation had a 59 percent mortality rate at 10 years. Other studies have corroborated that finding.

Her potential threat was 87 percent. I wouldn't question her choice.

This information is helpful. Thank you for answering my question without being unnecessarily critical like Sci.

Of course I could do more searching on this matter myself, but since you are being helpful, which tissues are most likely to develop cancer when the BRCA mutation is present? Would a more targeted surgical removal of tissue in the mammaries be as effective?

 

[teya]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

Because women with the BRCA mutations have a very poor prognosis. The disease hits when they're young (Jolie's mom was 46) and the younger a woman with a BRCA mutation is at diagnosis, the worse her prognosis.

A retrospective study in Sweden indicated that women with a BRCA mutation had a 59 percent mortality rate at 10 years. Other studies have corroborated that finding.

Her potential threat was 87 percent. I wouldn't question her choice.

This information is helpful. Thank you for answering my question without being unnecessarily critical like Sci.

Of course I could do more searching on this matter myself, but since you are being helpful, which tissues are most likely to develop cancer when the BRCA mutation is present? Would a more targeted surgical removal of tissue in the mammaries be as effective?

No. Breast ca can be ductal or lobular in origin. If you look at a cross-section of the breast, you can see why more targeted preventive treatment just isn't possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Breast_anatomy_normal_scheme.png

Add to that the fact that some women present with nodal metastases (which cuts their survival prognosis significantly) without a clear primary tumor (in other words, the breast tumor is microscopic), and the option for prophylactic mastectomy in BRCA positive women becomes more understandable.

FWIW, I was talking to my friend's mom this morning. She was offered the testing about 10 years ago based on her own history of breast ca and a family history. She was advised to turn it down--because if it came back positive, she'd lose health insurance coverage.

Had she been tested & had a prophylactic oophorectomy then, she wouldn't be dealing with ovarian cancer now.

 

[Stiletto]

Poor Christina Applegate, she had a double-mastectomy a couple of years ago and it was barely a blip in the entertainment news; okay, maybe more than just a blip, but definitely less coverage than this.http://www.tv.com/people/christina-applegate/

 

[Kira's Mom]

^Christina Applegate actually had breast cancer. What Angelina Jolie did was preventative, and it was a big surprise.

87% chance of getting a likely incurable cancer- Angelina did the right thing. Ditto with the plan to remove her ovaries.

 

[RJDiogenes]

This has been happening more and more frequently. It's not something to make light of; having the mutation is very scary and having the mastectomy is very traumatic. It's not an easy decision to make or to live with. I feel sorry for her. I hope she has a long and happy life ahead of her.