This might sound stupid

cabbott said:

Not crazy
We are entitled to our feelings. Finding out that our breast or breasts have developed a disease that, should it spread, could threaten our very life, is little different than finding out that a wood foundation of a house let termites in that are slowly destroying where we live or finding out that a glass front door let a burglar in the house that is stealing all we own. Once caught and corrected, most folks in those situations would take steps to make sure it wouldn't happen again and no one would think them nuts for buying a different house with a cement foundation or replacing the broken glass door with a metal unbreakable one.

But be careful before you contemplate surgery on a perfectly healthy breast. Removing more tissue to prevent cancer or lengthen life was an experiment already pushed on women in the United States over and over again in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and somewhat into the 90's. It was a failure. Research showed that removing primary cancers and a rim of healthy tissue around the tumors seemed to often effect a cure or at least lengthen the disease free survival time a person had. So if some is good, the idea that more is better was born. In Europe, the doctors found that lumpectomies followed by radiation resulted in just as long of lifespan as radical mastectomies in the US. Sometimes the results were even better than the extra surgery cases. Doctors in the US didn't believe in the minimum approach for the longest time. You can still run into doctors that insist that a woman have more surgery than necessary. I had a local GYN that insisted that all his patients with breast cancer get their ovaries out, a procedure my oncologist at a University teaching hospital said was totally unnnecessary. The oncologist was going with the current research. The gyn was 15 years out of med school and I switched gyn docs after I did my homework. More just isn't better if it is healthy tissue you are removing.

I had to have a mastectomy because the cancer showed up in two different spots and two lumpectomies on my size small breast just wouldn't look too good. Also, the kind of cancer I had was likely to be scattered throughout the breast and I didn't want to go through the operation again any time soon. I opted to keep my left breast. I have had a call back now and then for extra shots on it for a calcification that showed up, but it hasn't grown and the breast is still there. That was back in 2002. The left breast so far is doing okay. I have to have yearly exams and I worry the night before each just a little. But after the first year or two following the mastectomy I worried less and less. Getting to the 5 year mark was a big hurdle. I used to always be looking for lumps and such. Now I have to remind myself to remember to check. So the fear part has really eased up.

If you are contemplating mastectomy out of fear, talk to your doctor and read the research. Ask questions about what the difference in your life span and life quality would be. In some cases, a preventitive mastectomy may be a good idea. In other cases, close medical supervision is sufficient. Genetic testing could be useful in determing how likely the cancer may reoccur on the other side. Interpretation of the path report helps too. But make sure you go to a really good breast oncologist and not my gyn that was behind the times as far as cancer treatment outcomes goes.

If you want a mastectomy just to look balanced, your insurance company might foot the bill (money is a consideration . . .)It can be a type of reconstruction if the doctor writes it up correctly. Here a good plastic surgeon can be helpful. By the way, tissue from the abdomen, should you opt for that kind of reconstruction, can't get breast cancer in it. So you have options.

Good luck with your decision!

C. Abbott

kate33 said:

Ooops- posted twice

Ooops- posted twice