to not know how to feel about Angelina Jolie's announcement?

[Scarletohello]

I must admit I was really shocked to hear that she had had a double mastectomy,I don't know much about breast cancer so it seemed an extreme thing to do. Very brave to go public about it but I felt disturbed and sad,feels brutal to me. Can't really process it tbh,what do other people think..?

There are some really nasty people on here. Who the hell are you to tell someone how they should and shouldn't feel?

Just because we don't know her personally means it can't possibly affect us? I guess we should get over ourselves when people go missing or tragedies happen because 'it doesn't affect you personally'.

Fuck's sake.

I think she did what was right for her and her family and if her talking about it gets people in the USA talking about the unfairness of their health situation, then surely that's a good thing.

I was horrified to see a friend on Facebook say it was just a publicity stunt and there is no link between preventative mastectomy and furthermore there is no link between ovarian and breast cancer. It took me two seconds to find many academic journal articles citing the opposite.

ledkr: "hackmum mastectomy for breast ca is sometimes still necessary my friend has just had to have one."

Yes, but radical mastectomy is rarely performed these days. They used to perform radical mastectomies because they misunderstood the way cancer spread.

Ledkr: "Also It's not as simple as just opting to get cancer instead because survival rates are higher. The treatment can be horrible and life changing for many and there's still too many women dying from it.
The screening is not always the best and for ovarian cancer it's next to useless."

Sorry, replying over two posts! I know it's not simple, in fact, my whole point is that it's not simple. Whatever choice you make brings risks. I know how horrible breast cancer treatment can be because my mother died from the disease. But I also know that a close friend who was diagnosed in the past year had treatment that was relatively straightforward. Screening also isn't ideal because a) radiation in itself creates a risk of cancer and b) by its nature it doesn't tend to catch fast-growing cancers, which are the ones that are more likely to kill you.

My point is that the way this is being presented in the media is designed to manipulate people into having a particular set of responses, such as "how brave" and "how important to raise awareness". In fact the whole issue of preventing, detecting and treating breast cancer is very complicated.

Ledkr is right - saying survival rates are higher is missing the point. A genetic disposition means just that - you are at higher risk of developing and continuing to develop cancers unless and until the organ is removed. It's not that easy to get proper follow up in the UK either - when I used the NHS the follow-up was supposed to be annual but they rarely managed to get themselves organised inside 18 months. The screening itself is pretty hideous too.

I always thought she was a bit vacuous, but I admire her for firstly going through a big operation and secondly for standing up and saying she's had it done. She will help remove some of the stigma around bc which can only be a good thing. In her position I would have gone through the procedure too - a few weeks of pain or a v high risk of a long painful death. It's a no brainer. And hopefully it will put that damned love triangle story with Jennifer Anniston out of the headlines for ever.

My treatment was "straight forward" as in all went according to plan and young enough to bounce back however in most cases one would still need surgery, radio therapy and ongoing drug treatment for years with side effects so balanced against an operation is often not the best choice.
Radio therapy is every day so a big commitment.
The preventive op isn't as radical as it sounds.
I am slightly scarred but the breast outer skin remains and I chose to keep my nipples so cosmetically it's a better option than mastectomy after discovering cancer which for a woman making this choice would be a factor.

What are you on about Hemlet?

I don't know much about breast cancer. Thankfully we only have had 1 death from it in our family to my knowledge. I absolutely would have the surgery if I was given an 87% chance of getting cancer - I value my family more than my breasts.

I admire Angelina Jolie and have done for a few years. I am always slightly agog when I read comments about her work outside of acting and how people seem to view what she does as seeking publicity. Bollocks.

Of course other women go through this surgery without publicising it but frankly if they did then who would pay any heed? She has a voice and is using it.
I think she is wonderful and if people cannot see that what she is trying to do is to lessen the stigma attached to a loss of breasts being a loss of femininity then that is their problem. Even if her article helps 1 child to keep their mother then it was a job well done imo

iijlk yes a good friend did the same recently - also had to have a radical mastectomy.

Screening also isn't ideal because a) radiation in itself creates a risk of cancer and b) by its nature it doesn't tend to catch fast-growing cancers, which are the ones that are more likely to kill you

The last bit is utter crap - please get your facts straight. Screening picks up both slow growing and aggressive cancers - it doesn't distinguish between them.

Some of the science on all the AJ threads has been laughable.

Screening also isn't ideal because a) radiation in itself creates a risk of cancer and b) by its nature it doesn't tend to catch fast-growing cancers, which are the ones that are more likely to kill you

The last bit is utter crap - please get your facts straight. Screening picks up both slow growing and aggressive cancers - it doesn't distinguish between them.

Some of the science on the AJ threads has been laughable.

It isn't worth arguing about the science, it is all treatable/curable in theory, but depending on how you are treated and how your appointments/screenings are spread out by your particular consultant (if under the NHS) dictates your outcome. I have had experience of the wrong diagnosis and treatments for relatives during the "cancer process". I also experienced this many years ago when I worked in end of life care, but the treatments now available, wasn't then. The only thing that you can do is find out the best advice for your particular circumstances, including what health care that you can access. Speaking as someone who was widowed because of cancer, with three children and attending support groups with people in the same position, (and nearly losing my life myself) having a good income doesn't mean that life is going to be easy for the children left behind, or for her whilst going through the process, as the comments on here suggest. What goes on in your head is the hardest part of any life event.

Amazonians lobbed their breasts off to chuck javelins?!

My friend's sis had a mammo, which was clear, but 10 months later she found a lump, which was an unusual very aggressive quick growing type.

She went through 5 months of very aggressive chemo before they checked and found it had grown back already, so changed the chemo for another 3 months. It had been originally a 6 month cycle. Then had a month a Radio. She was told she couldn't be cured.
5 years on she is still in remission.

Isn't ledkr's point that a fast-growing cancer with a short doubling time is going to be able to become more established in the 18-month gap between monitoring mammograms than a slower-growing cancer? For an "average" cancer with a doubling time of four months or so a mammogram would pick up the presence of a tumour about two and a half years before you'd have a palpable lump, so having a mammogram every 18 months will almost certainly mean you catch it earlier than if you weren't having the mammograms. But if the doubling time is significantly shorter, say a month or so, a mammogram would only pick up a tumour about seven months before you'd have a palpable lump that you'd be able to feel anyway - so the chances of the screening mammogram catching the faster-growing cancer are much lower loweras it can easily grow from "small enough not to be visible on a mammogram" to "WTF is this lump in my breast?" inside the interval between mammograms.

Or is that not right?

Personally I think she's great for doing what she's done (as in go public etc). The main reason for this is she's considered by many to be one of the world's most beautiful women. One of the main things that really affects women who have mastectomies etc is they feel a loss of their woman-hood, the same with chemo hair loss. To see that beautiful woman up there, still being a strong, confident woman who is admired, may help some women come to terms with their own scars.

My Mum has battled breast cancer for 20 years. She's had multiple courses of chemo, a mastectomy and reconstruction and a few lumpectomies and courses of radiotherapy. We have recently found out that the cancer has spread to her brain and it's inoperable. She has nothing but nice things to say about what AJ is doing. Mum has worked hard at fundraising over the years and is involved in creative projects where people are making art using women with scars. She's done life modelling etc as one example. One of the worst things for her is the loss of control over her body, so this is something to combat that.

On the subject of preventative mastectomies...if I could do anything to make sure my family don't have to go through what we've been through all over again...I'd do it in a heart beat.

Spero: Exactly the same thing happened to me. I was on the trolley waiting to be wheeled in for my lumpectomy and the surgeon came to see me and asked me how he wanted me to go in to remove my tumour. It was on the top of my breast, but he gave me the choice of going in at the side so the scar wouldn't be as obvious, but then there was less chance of getting the whole tumour out with clear margins. I told him to go in whichever way gave me the best chance of getting the cancer out and fuck stuff the scarring.

I didn't have the option for a double mastectomy but if I was offered it, I'd jump at at knowing it would drastically decrease the odds of my cancer coming back. I'm not eligible for genetic testing either (went with female members of my family and got as far as the counselling) as the family history isn't strong enough, despite me having had breast cancer in my twenties and another female relative in her 40's.

I've always liked Angeline Jolie but I admire her for speaking out about this. She is in an amazing position of privilege though and has options that others don't. If I could afford it, I'd pay privately for the BRCA genes testing and then I'd have more options if I did have the genes, rather than the yearly mammograms and monitoring I get now, which will soon go to nothing after five years.

My lump was undetectable on a mammo because I was young apparently.
I found it luckily due to small norks but it was invasive even though only 9 mm including surrounding tissue.
In having my op I avoided future mammos stopped tamoxifen and had two more babies with lower risk of recurrence.
At the end of the day it's a personal choice whether to have the surgery or take pot luck. To a degree I've done that by keeping my ovaries for twenty years but with a 70 % chance of ovarian ca I'm now in the process of having them removed too.
I have yearly not very effective screening and a degree of worry too.
I'm certainly happy to put an end to that soon.

So it is said, jewcy, but there is no proof via art as their art shows both breasts.

user that's bad. I' had mine done soley as I was so young thus the chance of recurrence being as significant as if I had a faulty gene.
I have no family history either.
That's dreadful. Have you asked for second opinion?

While I think that it?s a difficult decision to make to have serious preventative surgery, I think all the ?oh she is so brave/admirable/wonderful? comments are just a bit patronising really.

So she had surgery to prevent herself from getting a disease which killed her mother. It?s a personal thing to her, and she?s fortunate that she is in the position to be able to doo it. But the publicity around it doesn?t sit right with me either, and I fail to see the ?awareness? that people talk about off the back of this. Awareness of what exactly? That breast cancer exists? Well we know that, no? That it can be genetic? Well I thought that was fairly common knowledge also, have seen enough people go on talk shows who have done similar, and known enough people who have a family history. That testing is available? Well quite possibly, except that if you?re in the US testing isn?t available unless like AJ you can afford to pay for it. So in fact the only message that AJ going public with this has delivered is ?I had my breasts removed and had three months of medical treatment because I have the money to do it. Sorry about the rest of you who don?t. But you?ll all say I?m brave and wonderful anyway? Publicity stunt to go public? Maybe maybe not. She certainly hasn?t had good publicity in the past around e.g. the adoptions of her children and her commitments to ?adopt a child from every continent in the world,? so this is a chance for a bit of good publicity?

I have no opinion either way on AJ having her breasts removed. She did what works foor her and her family, good luck to her. But I do feel that some parts of people?s lives are private and should remain such, and don?t need selling to the likes of OK and Hello etc, because you can bet your bottom dollar she?ll be being paid for her ?breast cancer hell,? story.

User error - o my god.

That a surgeon can even say that. To compromise removal of a tumour that will kill you just so the breast isn't scarred where someone might see it! The horror!

If AJ's announcement reduces even by 1% the amount of creepy fetishisation of breasts by men who should know better than that is bloody brilliant.

If I were in her position, knowing what she knows about her chances of getting breast cancer I would seriously consider doing the same thing. I can't think of anything worse than dying when my Dd is still young. I am close to a lovely family friend who is now 16 and whose mum died when she was 9 and her brother 6. Even though 7 years have passed the situation still feels as tragic now as it did when it happened. All the things her mum has missed and all the things her children have had to manage without her. I would do anything to avoid that.

She did close her piece in the NYT pointing out that many affected women in the US couldn't afford the testing that she'd had, which may have helped to focus attention there, particularly as IIRC there are some important decisions over the legality of the US patent (which makes testing more expensive there) coming up.

And one MNer has already shared (on, I think, another thread) about a friend of hers who has the faulty gene but whose husband has said he'll divorce her if she gets the op. If "most beautiful woman in the world" AJ can do it perhaps that will empower her to go for it (almost as good, empower to get rid of the husband too) and that would be an achievement on its own.