how many here have to NO BC in family?

I have no family history of BC.  I got IBC at age 49, so I was tested for the genetic mutation.  It was explained to me that there was only a 5% likelihood of being positive for the mutated gene, but I got tested since I was under the age of fifty and that is what qualified me as being a candidate for the testing.  It was negative, and I was relieved.  if 95% of all BC is not hereditary, then it MUST BE ENVIRONMENTAL!  All of these people with cancer and no family history just reinforces the fact that cancer is not something that is passed through bloodlines for most of us.  It must be caused by chemicals, food additives, pesticides, and pollutants.  But since the cancer industry is such a huge money making machine, the true cause of cancer is still unknown, despite all this so called research and interest in finding a cure.  New drugs are the money makers, so why find a cure when you can find another drug to ward off the symptoms and make it go into remission?  

Seanchai said:

I agree!  I'm  the first, and

I agree!  I'm  the first, and I sure hope I'm the last!

I am the first as far as I know in my family and in my husband's family.  I celebrate everyday that I am still in remission and pray for all of us that we never hear those 3 words again.

cathyp said:

burcu123...I guess I'm not

burcu123...I guess I'm not understanding why you don't consider 1% to not be a low risk?  Or is it that you are comparing it to the endometrial cancer risk? Tamoxifen is not right for everyone and that's where the education probably should come in to play (other side effects or risks ie;blood clots) Looking at it on the surface, elementary speaking % wise,  there would be 99 women taking tamoxifen that would never had been dx'd with BC the way you are putting it. 

To me it seems this breast cancer % risk means it's individually calculated based on factors such as dense breasts, age at pregnancy, diet, family hx, previous radiation exposure, etc etc.  I don't know this as fact but that makes more sense to me. 

most studied risk evaluation is gail risk index. this consists of questions about risk factors.  Gail risk index could be found at www.cancer.gov/brisktoo/ or at komes's web site)

Gail risk index has it's weaknesses too like it does not consider the age of your first degree relative at the diagnosis of breast cancer or does not ask about estrogen levels.

anyway the cornerstone study that has shown the protective effects of tamoxifen is called "The national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project" it was supponsered by NIH not any drug company.

This study used gail risk index to determine high risk women. A risk over 1.7% ( meaning a risk of breast cancer of 1.7% in the next five years) considered high risk. Subjects were selected to have a risk of 1.7% or above. This means any subject will have at least 1.7% risk of developing breast cancer in the next 5 years. This means same subject will have at least 98% chance of not having breast cancer in the next 5 years.

Sounds extreme when it is put like that isn't it. we humans tend to make decisions with our feelings not facts. If someone told you your chance of not having breast cancer in 98% in the next 5 years would you take a medicine to prevent it, not likely . But now look at it this way.

This 5 year  risk will turn in to a 30% life time risk, as this woman ages. Now even 30% may not look too high for you.

Then let's go to other preventive treatments we do , how many people you know take statins to lower their cholesterol or blood pressure.

If you are a nonsmoker 50 year old female with a cholestrol of 300 and you do not take any medications what is your risk of heart attack in the next 10 years. It is 5%. This means you have a 95% chance of not having a heart attack.( do not believe me go to www.heart.org and calculate the risk)

If your doctor will give you statins to lower your cholesterol do yoou blame her for giving you uneccessary medications with side effects for a condition that is not likely to effect you by 95%.

How about blood pressure , how about irregular heart rate. risks are very similar. Yet thank god both public and physicians are very well educated and very eager to treat risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

However breast cancer prevention has slipped down the cracks, on the contraray breast cancer prevention is presented as not wort it.

In order to prevent one breast cancer yes approximately 95 women had to be treated.

Now inorder to save one life how many mamograms has to be done, check it out, if we use the same logic , we should forbid mamograms.

how many people with high cholesterol has to be treated to prevent one heart attack, a lot at least 50 or 60 . So this means all others has taken statins invain.

BREAST CANCER PREVENTION IS REAL, IT IS EFFECTIVE, IT IS SAFE , IT IS COST EFFECTIVE, IT IS IGNORED

PLease help me spread the word

answer for the mamogram: To prevent one additional breast cancer death, 1,000 women would have to get mammograms starting at age 40 vs. age 50.

My family is riddled with cancer.  My paternal grandmother and her 4 sisters ALL died from breast cancer.  One sister (my great aunt) also had colon cancer. 

My dad had two brothers and no sisters.  One brother died from colon cancer; my dad had colon cancer but died from a stroke; his baby brother has had precancerous polyps, but so far so good. 

Out of my dad's kids, 3 have had breast cancer (all 40 yo or younger) and one has had thyroid cancer.  There is also scattered cancer on my mom's side, but not as pronounced.

My youngest sister and I had genetic testing which turned up negative.  Docs say we likely have a gene that has not yet been identified.

CypressCynthia said:

My family is riddled with

My family is riddled with cancer.  My paternal grandmother and her 4 sisters ALL died from breast cancer.  One sister (my great aunt) also had colon cancer. 

My dad had two brothers and no sisters.  One brother died from colon cancer; my dad had colon cancer but died from a stroke; his baby brother has had precancerous polyps, but so far so good. 

Out of my dad's kids, 3 have had breast cancer (all 40 yo or younger) and one has had thyroid cancer.  There is also scattered cancer on my mom's side, but not as pronounced.

My youngest sister and I had genetic testing which turned up negative.  Docs say we likely have a gene that has not yet been identified.

I am fourth generation breast cancer.  Not sure how old my great grandmother was when she died, but my grandmother was only 48 and my mom was only 58. I was diagnoised at 33, did well for 23 years, now 3 years ago I relasped.  So they finally decided to do the BRCA gene testing and I was negative for both.  So my daughter and 2 nieces are somewhat relieved but yet where is all this coming from.  I also had my only first cousin die at 40 years old from breast cancer.  My dad died of prostate cancer, my oldest brother is fighting prostate cancer and my older sister has had two diferent types of Breast cancer.  So research has alot more to do to figure things out in my opinion. 

Patti1967 said:

I am the only one in my

I am the only one in my family.  I was diagnosed with bilateral IDC in 8/12 I am 45. I had all gentic tests, all neg.  We did an extensive family search on both sides and theres nothing.  I am fortunate to have generations still around on both sides.

Patti

Hi Denise,  As for me, we had no other woman/man that we could find in my family with breast cancer.  I am the first to have breast cancer and I hope the last. Infact there is very little cancer we know of in my family. One Aunt (cervical)and an Uncle (mouth/tongue)one on each side until me.  I was diagnosed with Rt. breast IDC March 15th,2013 I will have a bilaterial mastectomy this friday April,26th....   God Bless!  Kathy

survivor87 said:

I am fourth generation breast

I am fourth generation breast cancer.  Not sure how old my great grandmother was when she died, but my grandmother was only 48 and my mom was only 58. I was diagnoised at 33, did well for 23 years, now 3 years ago I relasped.  So they finally decided to do the BRCA gene testing and I was negative for both.  So my daughter and 2 nieces are somewhat relieved but yet where is all this coming from.  I also had my only first cousin die at 40 years old from breast cancer.  My dad died of prostate cancer, my oldest brother is fighting prostate cancer and my older sister has had two diferent types of Breast cancer.  So research has alot more to do to figure things out in my opinion. 

Breast cancer prevention is possible. For the other female memebers of your family , it is possibletoprevent breast canecr. Please google chemoprevention for breast cancer also check chemoprevention in Komen's web site

RozHopkins said:

Sorry

I did have it in the family.  Mother and two aunts.

None in either of my families. I am the first and I am male. Go figure!

disneyfan2008 said:

way back -my dad had sugery

way back -my dad had sugery (this was 1978) for what they thought was breast cancer...but happy to say it was not...sad to say he was killed in car accident short time afterwards..

 

sending good thoughts your way..

 

Denise

I am the first one and I hope the only one to get breast cancer in my family.