May 15, 2013
-
Angelina Jolie Gets Double Mastectomy
Angelina Jolie revealed she had a double mastectomy. Her mother died of breast cancer and she found out she had the “faulty” BRCA1 gene that leads to breast cancer.
Angelina said that doctors told her she decreased her risk of getting cancer from 87% to 5% by getting a double mastectomy. Here is the link: LinkWould you get a double mastectomy even if you never had breast cancer?
Comments (58)
After I have kids I’m going to have a look at those tests and things, on my fathers side there’ sfour children, every single one of them have had a type of cancer(2x breast, 1xcervical, and my father passed away from Kidney cancer). So I already know there’s a high risk for me so I’m depending on early detection.
That’s a hard one. At this time in my life.. No, I wouldn’t. I would first want to breastfeed my future children. I would get it done in a heartbeat after that.
(or is breastfeeding still possible after a mastectomy?)
No but I did not watch my mother die ether, so I’m not judgeing her
It also depends on the type of cancer that I would be likely to catch. Most cancers are easily cured if they are coughs early. So there would be little point in going through the treatment for the cancer you ave not caught yet. when your chances for survival are very good even if you catch it. And I would certainly be getting a lot of mammograms if I had that genetic link
My big boobs are the only chance I ever have at getting free stuff from anyone. If I lost them, I’d have jack shit.
@hintofblue - I assume it isn’t, since the goal of the mastectomy is total removal of all breast tissue. They cannot recreate the milk ducts, they can only recreate the image of lovely lady lumps with implants.
It IS still possible after a breast augmentation, but not after a mastectomy.
People make the choices they need to, so I would never judge anyone for their choice regarding this. That said, I wonder how accurate the estimates for risk are? It doesn’t make sense to me for many reasons. They say that breast size doesn’t change risk. I know that as a small-breasted woman with a significant family history of breast cancer. They try, during the mastectomy, to remove all breast tissue, but they often can’t, as sometimes breast tissue can be found in the axillary (armpit) areas and sometimes even down toward the abdomen.
I have to wonder, does this mean you don’t get things like Mammograms? After all, you no longer have breast tissue, in theory. Correct? Is it a false sense of security, that you have decreased your risk so far that you hope you are now immune? How do you get a mammogram if you have no breast tissue? I don’t understand this aspect. What would you be getting, a mammogram of your implant? That doesn’t work.
Getting rid of the breast doesn’t get rid of the estrogens that cause the cancer to begin with. What then of the ovarian cancer risk? BRCA2 also means you have an increased risk of ovarian cancer, in fact that is what killed Jolie’s mother. Should you get a total hysterectomy to remove the ovaries as well?
But what then of the need for estrogen at all?
I have too many questions that are never fully answered to say whether I think this is a good option or not. If I had known breast cancer, yes I would get a mastectomy. That goes without saying, since typically, one would remove an accessible malignant tumor anyway.
I have had breast cancer and am a survivor.
With a high probability and if I had the money… I’d say why not lower the opportunity. Sure.
I would absolutely do it if I had the funds. Why wait if you knew the possibility was so high? (given that you had enough money to do it preemptively). I wish this was more of an option for others.
If I had a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation on top of a strong family history of breast cancer, then yes I would get prophylactic bilateral mastectomies.
@PrincessPowers - I’ve never heard of a prophylactic hysterectomy. The chances of breast cancer are significantly higher than for uterine cancer. Also, estrogen does not cause the cancer. As a matter of fact, there are studies that show estrogen use in hormone replacement therapies have a preventative effect. There IS some sort of link, though. Usually I tell my patients that they no longer have to get mammograms after that, but if they want one, it’s not like we can deny them of one.
@hintofblue - nope, breastfeeding is not possible.
@PrincessPowers - scratch that, I just looked it up. People do get prophylactic hysterectomies. I guess I’ve just never encountered one.
My gut reaction is no way. It’s hard to say, though, without going through that moment of being told the odds by my doctor. It’s certainly not something I’d do without second and third medical opinions and lots of discussion.
Good for her. My grandma had a double mastectomy after a cancerous lump was found in her breast, and one of my mother’s high school friends (only 50 years old) just died of breast cancer. I don’t have that much to lose, so I don’t think it would be that big of a deal to me… and if it meant the difference between life and death, hell yes I would!
I don’t think I would, considering I’m not certain how accurate the percentages are. But, if I’d lost my mother… I might have in her shoes.
yep. i would.
Ugh, yes I would. Wouldn’t be happy about it, but that’s life I suppose.
Yes, you bet I would. Luckily I “only” have heart disease, stroke and adult onset (Type 2) diabetes to contend with. No breast cancer in any known relatives. She is right on!
Good thing she wasn’t afraid she’d get Alzheimers….we’d a lost her.
It’s like Mickey Mantle (the old time Yankee baseball player) was so worried about dying from congenital osteomyletis(sic) that he killed himself drinking.
Jolie will probably die in a plane crash in Borneo, or a bus crash in the Andes, or a car crash in London, or Brad or Jennifer will blow her away, or some disappointed fan, or something stupid like that.
Obviously there’s no God, and your life is not in His hands.
As a male I worry about every type of cancer there is. This includes breast cancer (even breast cancer though it rare in males) it still worries me.
@my_final_username - worried about testicular cancer kid? cut em off and you won’t have that problem. Jolie-logic.
well, it might have been a business decision on her part. Jolie-logic. Probably more value to a topless photo of her NOW. Does this mean that she and Brad are no longer bosom buddies? Will they EVER marry now?
It’s the next step in fashionable self-mutilation, way beyond Mike Tyson’s face tattoo. You think she loves herself? Or hates herself? Which?
Probably, if I was in her same position. Don’t blame her one bit.
Although my family is riddled with cancers of every vital organ, so it’d be harder to get those removed.
estrogen is a hormone. Like many hormones it has multiple roles in different parts of our body. It plays an important role female development, sexual reproduction and a a role in our emotions. One thing that certain that without or a low amount of estrogen has significant results like menopause, lack of or no development and maturation of secondary sexual characteristics and the like. Low levels of estrogen can also effects menstrual cycle. @PrincessPowers -
that would be hard to do.
I don’t even want to take the test for different diseases to see if I carry the disease -any disease.
It is interesting that Angelina Jolie was able to save the nipple tissue, a breast would not look like a breast without a nipple. Yet we are puritan enough to never show a nipple.
A lady here in Glendale makes a good living on making plus size bras and other stuff for survivors of breast cancer therapy. It is a bittersweet business but self image for women is an important thing to a lot of women.
Angelina Jolie will also have to do something about her ovaries. It will be the next step she will have to take.
I don’t know…
I really commend her for what she did but personally, I would be too chicken to do it, unless it was confirmed I was diagnosed.
Incredibly tough decision to imagine being in. My gut tells me I would wait until I have kids then consider the surgery. My ex’s mum is dying of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer right now at age 59. My own grandmothers died of uterine and breast cancer at ages 61 and 70, respectively. Not sure either nana would have tested positive for BRCA1 OR BRCA2 but I can only imagine anyone who carries the genes would want the option to make that choice for themself. Scary to think of going through such an invasive procedure as removing both breasts but terrifying to roll the dice with those odds.
I know she’s gotten a lot of press over this but as I recall Christina Applegate had thesame procedure for BRCA1 maybe 5 yrs ago….. and Giuliana Rancic somewhat more recently after finding out she had breast cancer
Just googled it! And Sharon Osbourne!
No. I appreciate everything healthy about my body, and would not knowingly subject myself to an immoral doctor who disregards the words, “First, do no harm”.
I would do it in about 3 seconds.
@Marica0701 - My wife gets free stuff from me all of the time for the reason you stated.
I still cannot believe she did this.
So how can I prevent testicular cancer?
If I had breasts- would I whack them off? Probably! I don’t think they would look good on me!
I honestly can’t say. I hate the idea of someone cutting me up if it’s not absolutely necessary, and I also hate the idea of walking around without breasts for the rest of my life. But if I were that high risk for breast cancer, maybe I’d hate the idea of getting cancer more.
I think Angelina Jolie is very brave to have done what she did, I just can’t say if I would do the same in her position.
I’d prefer not, but I can’t say because I don’t have her experience, nor kids to be there for yet. I understand why she did it. If she’s okay with it, I don’t get why people judge her for it. By all means, let a mom have no fear of cancer taking her from her children. If she had already been diagnosed, people would have no problem with it. So, if it’s what she wanted to do in the best interest of her family, then go for it.
It would be an awkward decision for anyone.
I would. I might do it anyway. I hate my moobs.
Millions of women go through unnecessary hysterectomies every year all over the world…while they could have alternatives…600,000 in the us every year..i see these surgeries as a form of disrespect and injustice towards women..women dont realize the seriousness of these operations and blindly believe their doctors…they realize too late the damage it did to their general wellbeing.. Furthermore, a gynecologist loses a lot of money each time a fibroid patient gets treated with embolization instead of surgery..when the gyneco and my doctor told me they wanted to remove everything, ovaries included, i saw the light…i knew they were wrong…something told me it was a lie…it did not make sense to me…i said no to them..i remainded without treatment..and after all that time there is nothing wrong with me…
@merfolklore -
I don’t understand your comment. Why do you think a doctor who does this type of procedure is immoral and violating the oath of “Do no harm”?
if I was diagnosed with breast cancer, then yes. as a preventative measure, then no. its the same as saying there is a large chance of getting hit by a car if I cross the street. do I never cross the street, or just hope for the best and deal with what comes?
Dan, her mom died of ovarian cancer. The mutation in the gene puts women at risk for both breast and ovarian cancer. There was a higher risk of breast cancer, so she had them removed. The ovarian cancer risk was low enough, so I guess she’ll cross that bridge IF she gets to it.
@whataboutbahb - This surgery was harmful elective surgery, not treatment. It was undertaken based on fear on the victim’s part, as well as her incredible faith in the type of science/theory that was promoted to her by those desiring maximum profit. This was not medical care – this was medical mutilation and experimentation, and thanks to Angelina going public with it, we can all observe what kind of results come from what has been done. Being interested in the way people think, I can’t help but wonder why Angelina processed the statistic of 87% chance of getting breast cancer as she did – she sees cancer as a powerful thing, something she expects to have, instead of considering the possibility that she might be of the 13% who would not get cancer.
@merfolklore -
Since when is preventative treatment not treatment anymore but harmful? Also, you are just simply assuming she was advised by doctors motivated most by greed as opposed to doctors motivated most by their concerns for her health. Also, assuming the statistics are relatively accurate, Jolie processed them in a way a rational human being should: it is more likely than not that she will great breast cancer and she should act accordingly. Why on earth should she have embraced the special snowflake syndrome? It is much more proper for her to assume she will get cancer, rather than not get cancer, when the percentages are that high. Do you get your vaccines, do you wear your seatbelt, do you own any sort of insurance? There are tons of things we do to either prevent or prepare for a case of a LOW probability event occurring–what is wrong with doing something to try and prevent a HIGH probability even from occurring?
As for the surgery itself–what is wrong with the idea of preventative surgery? She is relatively younger and healthy today, which helps reduce the chances of complications arising. If she just waits around for the cancer to appear–which seems very likely that it will–then she could be older and not in as of health, making surgery much riskier. Furthermore, double mastectomies are pretty preventative in nature to being with–since cancer can be treated with radiation (the surgery is done to help prevent the cancer coming back). I just don’t see how preventative surgery is this horrible thing, if it is the right decision under the circumstances.
It is elective surgery. What, if anything, it prevented or caused remains to be seen. I have to say I was surprised that there is still a 5% prediction of getting breast cancer, and I guess there’s no point in thinking one might be the special snowflake there. Removing healthy body parts is preventive just as suicide prevents our being subject to death not of our own choosing – some people might consider it empowering. I can’t help but think of Farrah Fawcett and her sharing of the grueling medical treatments she undertook – I had to admire her and was touched by her passion. She was a celebrity, hardworking and determined that she would not succumb to cancer as her sister had, and like Angelina Jolie, she had the ability to get whatever treatments or procedures she wanted. I had the idea that Farrah thought if she worked hard enough and suffered enough, she could “win”. I’m sorry she didn’t, but I think there’s a common thread in the way she and Angelina think.
@merfolklore -
Whether it’s elective or not, it’s still preventative. It does greatly increase her odds of not getting breast cancer. Vaccines are preventative too. Should we wait until we get the flue, smallpox, etc. before we can try to treat it? Calling her breast tissue healthy is interesting. People born with dilated aortic roots/valves may have perfectly functional have a fully functional body part, but, based on what we know, that person is at a higher risk for that root or valve bursting. If a root/valve is above a certain size, cardiologists may recommend open heart surgery. This surgery is the definition of preventative–there could be zero current problems with the person but it is worth the preventative surgery to avoid the possibility of that burst valve. Athletes are at a higher risk and may elect surgery even at lower sizes (Ronny Turiaf–an NBA player did this–They found the dilated root/valve after he was draft and he had open heart surgery and sat out a year). If Jolie was very high risk for breast cancer (which it looks like she was) and had surgery that greatly reduced that risk of breast cancer, how on earth can you say that her doctors were harming her?
My belief is that the surgery is barbaric and harmful, and of course, totally unnecessary. You can believe as you do, and we’re all free to act on our beliefs. I just happen to think it is tragic that there are people who have such tremendous faith in whatever they are told by certain professionals, that they would allow themselves to be mutilated. Frankly, I don’t have that much faith in anything. All we can do now, as simple spectators, is watch and see how things work out for this woman.
@merfolklore -
Describing a surgery that drastically lowers your risk of breast cancer from “almost certain” to “pretty unlikely” as unnecessary is very strange to me. You seem to think that’s it’s no big deal to just wait until she actually gets cancer, which was the most likely outcome and then have the surgery. But that could end up being much riskier than having the surgery now, when she’s younger and healthy. So I’m still waiting on some sort of rational explanation from you for why you think the surgery is totally unnecessary.
Not sure why you’re waiting. If you haven’t found what I’ve said to be rational by now, it is pretty certain (perhaps 95%) that anything I say would not be considered rational by you. We think differently. I not only *know* that the surgery was/is unnecessary, the more I think about it, the more I think there is something very wrong with the entire story. I’m even beginning to wonder whether the woman really had the surgery. I certainly wouldn’t know. All I ever knew about her up to this point was her name, and that she had some connection w/Brad Pitt. Whenever something outlandish gets reported, I tend to think, “Follow the money”…and now I’ve read that the specific genes have a patent on them, owned by Myriad Genetics, I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole thing were a corrupt marketing scam where a celebrity is promoting medical “science” perversion. I mean, I am not trying to collect this information about this previously insignificant (to me) celebrity, yet I am being reached with all this information – and it even gets my concern and attention. To no avail, though, as I would never be influenced to buy into anything like it – or even far lesser versions of “innovation”. Think of all the money that could be raked in by having women go get genetic testing, after they’ve already been bombarded with breast cancer awareness efforts (primed). My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer. It didn’t kill her. A woman I help care for, who is 91, had a breast removed years ago because of breast cancer. A couple of years ago, she went to a cancer doctor/internist, because her regular doctor dumped her for insurance reasons. Cancer doctors diagnose cancer. This one diagnosed her again, and she had a lumpectomy. She is very tough, and has had no further problems with it – but then, she had no problems with it before the doctor found it, either.
@merfolklore -
You seem to embrace interesting contradictions–you say you are skeptical of most things and think that there is a decent chance this is all a conspiracy theory, but you remain very confident that you “*know*” the surgery was unnecessary. Why is that? Why not be more skeptical of your own assessment and be open to the possibility that her surgery was for the best?
Your reliance on two anecdotes to bolster your claim about how breast cancer isn’t all that scary and an elderly person can handle it just fine is also interesting. Anecdotes can provide data points but two data points are not very helpful on there own when we have a lot more data points to consider. Doctors should be aware of what the bulk of data available says on a matter. If your conspiracy theory had any legs, wouldn’t there be more of a uproar in the medical community about how this sort of procedure is completely unnecessary? Or are “they” all in on it?
I do think your thought process on these issues is very irrational and disconnected from reality. But I guess I had hoped that you might reconsider your thinking, once the irrationality was pointed out to you. I guess I was wrong. Maybe I at least planted a seed that might make you reconsider things in the future though.
Elective surgery is never necessary; that is why it is called elective. We all have choices.
As far as irrational, I consider an irrational response to be one based on emotion and mental state. That fear of breast cancer is being promoted and sold through awareness efforts, and now this, offends me greatly. What would motivate a person to remove sound body parts? As Angelina’s story goes, it is her mother’s death from breast cancer, and the heartbreaking idea of herself dying prematurely and leaving her children without their mother.
If indeed the double mastectomy did take place, it was not to treat any physical condition; instead, it was to treat a mental/emotional/psychological condition called fear. And the heartbreaking story told by Angelina, encouraging other women to get empowered as she has done, aims to grow fear in the listener and tug at those heartstrings. It does not encourage a rational response connected with objective reality.
That you would suggest I be skeptical of my own assessment and reconsider my thinking is interesting, as you might say. You don’t need to think differently on my account, and I would not suggest it. You are free to think and believe exactly as you wish. And so am I.
@merfolklore -
“What would motivate a person to remove sound body parts?”
Well, from what I’ve read, having BRCA1 means that it’s probably a stretch to call her breast tissue “sound.” It might be more accurate to refer to this tissue as a ticking time bomb (with only a very small chance that it doesn’t go off). Why not deactivate the bomb under your own conditions?
Maybe fear played a role in Jolie’s thought process, but it was hardly seems like an irrational decision, at least from what I’ve read from doctors writing on the topic. The odds were not in her favor. From an outsider’s prospective, it seems like she was follows the odds.
I don’t have much of an opinion whether her announcement will do more harm than good–since the vast majority of women don’t have BRCA1 or BRCA2, it might promote women to try and get double mastectomies when it doesn’t make as much sense to do it. And as you pointed out, it might lead to people wasting money on expensive genetic testing for a low probability condition, when most people without any family history of breast or ovarian cancer are unlikely to have the condition.
I thought the following article was a good read on the topic: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/17/opinion/welch-jolie-mastectomy/
Yes, good read, thanks. I did get directed to an article you might appreciate, as well -
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2013/05/angelina-jolie-story-crucial-time-brca-testing.html
No, I’d take a wait and see approach and if I had the same genetic marker then if anything came up I’d go straight to mastectomy, but not before an issue arose.
read ur articles and its very obvious u are afraid to actually pass any comments- all u do is ask questions , methinks its time to come on down off the fence , the trick is to trend set not shuffle along .