Screenings based on family history?

[Toomanyemails]

Was reading about calls for more prostate cancer screens for men, and the current advice was based on people being at higher risk if their dad or brother had had it. I know for breast and ovarian cancer they also ask about mums and sisters. Does this put only children at higher risk of being missed for screenings, because they're less likely to be flagged as at higher risk just because of having fewer immediate family members?
My maternal grandmother and great grandmother both had breast cancer under 40. I've asked if I'm eligible for genetic screening, and was told no, I only would be if my mum, maternal aunt or sister had had breast cancer. I don't have any sisters or maternal aunts so it's not a huge reassurance to me that I'm not in that category iyswim.

I'm not going to get paranoid about it and I understand the logic of basing screenings on immediate family, but am I off base in thinking this?

How old are you and your mum?

I'm 33, my mum is mid 60s so gets regular NHS screenings.

Would you want the screenings? What would you do if you found out you were higher risk? X

I agree that it seems odd, it's not just an only child issue, you'd be affected if you had 5 brothers and no sisters. This must be a lot of women (those with either no siblings, only brothers, or even maybe only younger sisters who might be less likely to develop it before them, plus women whose mothers are the same so no aunts) so I'd assume it has been considered and isn't causing a huge issue where those women are regularly not being screened and it's leading to negative outcomes for them.

Thanks, this is what I mean. My mum actually does have 2 brothers. I'm not going to freak out about it, just was curious after reading the Chris Hoy article and it reminded me of the previous conversation with my doctor where they asked about aunts and sisters.

I'd get the screenings if offered because there are preventative measures and even surgery you can get, plus mammograms from a younger age which can mean earlier, more effective treatment. I might plan for private mammograms from the age of 40.

Yes you're right. Having a gene like the BRCA genes doesn't mean you will definitely get cancer - so of course there is a chance that your mum could have inherited a gene like this and just not actually had cancer develop (but would still have the same 50/50 chance of passing the gene on to you regardless). Her maternal history certainly makes this a possible scenario.

I'm in a vaguely similar boat - a lot of men on my dad's side of the family (including my own dad and grandfather) have had prostate cancer, and the familial genes that cause this are the exact same ones (including BRCA) that cause genetic breast, ovarian etc cancers. I've been refused genetic testing because the history is among men only and no women, frustrating because there are no women on my dad's side of the family to be affected (my dad is one of three brothers and his dad was one of six brothers)!

Being extra-vigilant about regular self-examination is something I'm sure you are already doing.