Would you undergo preventive surgery to reduce cancer risk?

NachoBusiness · 27-03-2015 2:55pm #1

Obviousily an issue which mainly concerns women, but would be interested in knowing what the general view on this is.

Lot of debate currently regarding this topic given that Angelina Jolie has now had her ovaries removed following on from the double mastectomy which she had two years back after discovering she had a mutation in the BRCA1 gene (which guides repair of damaged DNA and suppresses tumor growth).

Jolie writes about her decision to undergo the latest surgery which results in forced menopause here.

Initially she received a lot of support but seems this second surgery has brought some criticism, such as the following remarks from the idiot that is Katie Hopkins for one:

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/580659883894304769

Obviously surgery to remove or treat a cancer is something that is not really up for debate but what about preemptive surgery. If you were told you had mutations in one of BRCA genes, and hysterectomy or mastectomy (or both) was advised, do you think it is something you would choose to do?

Or, if you are male and were told that because of a BRCA mutation it might be best for you to have a radical prostatectomy, do you think it is something that you would agree to undergo?

Personally I wouldn't as I don't think the possible side side effects or risk of surgery would be worth it. I believe genetic mutations are just one part of a complex picture. They are without question a gun pointed at your head, for sure, but I feel environment and lifestyle choices are what ultimately decides if that trigger is pulled or not. Maybe not letting people smoke around you and not smoking yourself would be a better start.

The Backwards Man · 27-03-2015 2:59pm

Statistically, if I breathe long enough I'll get cancer. I'm not currently considering taking any measures to curtail my breathing, nor do I plan to in the future.

Generic Dreadhead · 27-03-2015 3:02pm

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

The_Valeyard · 27-03-2015 3:08pm

Really depends on the quality of life an operation or change like that would bring. To each their own. Let's hope none of us here are forced to make choices like that!

Mars Bar · 27-03-2015 3:10pm

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

Did you read it after the Twitter pic? It's a very good opening post if you read the rest and it's a good topic to discuss.

I think I'd have to look at the history of my family to see just how often it occurs. Did her mother have cancer?

EDIT: Her mother died of ovarian cancer. I completely understand in that case.

Links234 · 27-03-2015 3:10pm

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

Yeah, I wish people would stop giving her oxygen, she's a bad troll

The_Valeyard · 27-03-2015 3:12pm

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, I wish people would stop giving her oxygen, she's a bad troll

I thought she was very enjoyable during the car crash late late valetine show.

eviltwin · 27-03-2015 3:13pm

I would. They are only breasts and ovaries, I could live without them if it meant not having the fear of cancer hanging over me.

27-03-2015 3:16pm

I think Angelina Jolie has a responsibility to minimise the risk of early death for the sake of her kids. As far as I know, HRT will ameliorate many of the symptoms of the forced menopause, and I think she's been very brave to proactively face this threat head on and take preventative action. She's done it quietly and with great dignity, and I'm not a particular fan of hers but I admire how she's handled this. I hope other women with huge risks like she faced take strength from her example when faced with such a terrible choice.

Breast reconstruction has minimised the trauma of the double mastectomy, and hopefully the right hormone therapy will do the same for the removal of her ovaries. I hope she lives a long and well life.

NachoBusiness · 27-03-2015 3:34pm

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

I also quoted Jolie and linked to an article where a specialist on the subject gave his opinion, along also of course with giving my own. Why quoting Katie Hopkin's should stifle or negate that, I don't know. What she said is after all the reason I was even reading about the topic today in the first place. Like or her loathe her (and I loathe her) her opinion is just that, an opinion.

floggg · 27-03-2015 3:35pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Obviousily an issue which mainly concerns women, but would be interested in knowing what the general view on this is.

Lot of debate currently regarding this topic given that Angelina Jolie has now had her ovaries removed following on from the double mastectomy which she had two years back after discovering she had a mutation in the BRCA1 gene (which guides repair of damaged DNA and suppresses tumor growth).

Jolie writes about her decision to undergo the latest surgery which results in forced menopause here.

Initially she received a lot of support but seems this second surgery has brought some criticism, such as the following remarks from the idiot that is Katie Hopkins for one:

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/580659883894304769

Obviously surgery to remove or treat a cancer is something that is not really up for debate but what about preemptive surgery. If you were told you had mutations in one of BRCA genes, and hysterectomy or mastectomy (or both) was advised, do you think it is something you would choose to do?

Or, if you are male and were told that because of a BRCA mutation it might be best for you to have a radical prostatectomy, do you think it is something that you would agree to undergo?

Personally I wouldn't as I don't think the possible side side effects or risk of surgery would be worth it. I believe genetic mutations are just one part of a complex picture. They are without question a gun pointed at your head, for sure, but I feel environment and lifestyle choices are what ultimately decides if that trigger is pulled or not. Maybe not letting people smoke around you and not smoking yourself would be a better start.

Sorry, what was the question again?

I was too busy judging you for thinking that taking the time to embed a tweet from Katie Hopkins would add something to the conversation to keep track.

27-03-2015 3:38pm

Katie Hopkins is an utter cow, belittling Jolie for what must have been an awful decision. That woman is pure poison.

Canis Lupus · 27-03-2015 3:41pm

I'm currently undergoing chemo. It's pretty sucky and even with Hodgkins lymphoma and like 95% survival rate there's no guarantee it won't come back in a year or two...

With this knowledge in hand.... If I was told I had a reeeeally high chance of getting a type of cancer, ie 75% chance or more then yeah, I'd potentially consider biting the bullet but again it depends on what cancer and the negatives of the surgery. Tough call to make say if I was told to remove my prostate at 33...

Wompa1 · 27-03-2015 3:43pm

I don't begrudge her getting the operation. It's a little rich that she feels compelled to be an example for others in a country in which Healthcare costs a fortune and such preventetive optional surgeries are the most expensive.
The media also keeps portraying her as brave.

A comedian had said, "She's really brave when you think about it. If she didn't have the operation there was a 95% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death."

27-03-2015 3:48pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't begrudge her getting the operation. It's a little rich that she feels compelled to be an example for others in a country in which Healthcare costs a fortune and such preventetive optional surgeries are the most expensive.
The media also keeps portraying her as brave.

A comedian had said, "She's really brave when you think about it. If she didn't have the operation there was a 95% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death."

To be fair, facing something like that head-on takes guts. So many people put their heads in the sand and hope for the best, she chose to swing into action and bring on the challenges of menopause and hormone therapy instead of sitting tight and hoping for the best.

Mars Bar · 27-03-2015 3:49pm

I didn't actually answer the question posed.

Yes I would.

My family has a strong history of brain issues such as tumours and bleeds including my mother. My cousin in his late twenties suffered a bleed in the brain just this week. His father died in 1998 because of a haemorrhage. I wouldn't be adverse to having my brain removed if that wasn't so problematic in itself! :pac:

seamus · 27-03-2015 3:52pm

I guess it depends on the risk. If you're doing to reduce a 0.5% risk to a 0.05% risk, then you're probably being insanely overreactive.

Jolie is probably quite a bit more paranoid about cancer than most, understandably so. But the risks she's been quoted for her personally aren't small ones. So it seems like a pretty rational choice on her part. If the risk was 10% or so, then the rational choice is probably a six-monthly check up and test for it. If the risk is 87%, then it seems more logical to whip that thing off and remove the risk completely.

Cancer's a bitch. While survival rates are good if you catch it early, they're not perfect. So if you've a high chance of developing a particular type of cancer, the most effective way of not dying from cancer would be to whip it off.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-03-2015 9:35pm

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Statistically, if I breathe long enough I'll get cancer. I'm not currently considering taking any measures to curtail my breathing, nor do I plan to in the future.

Oxygen is mutagenic, good luck avoiding that one.

seamus wrote: »

I guess it depends on the risk. If you're doing to reduce a 0.5% risk to a 0.05% risk, then you're probably being insanely overreactive.

Surgery carries risks too. Also she'd have access to the quality of health care and surgeons that the rest of use could only dream of. She ain't going under the hammer with Dr Nick.

Also the approximate dose from a CT scan of the abdomen—increases the lifetime risk of developing any cancer by 0.1 percent. Avoid CAT scans unless there is just cause.

As it's AH
Has she checked the odds for brain cancer ? :pac:

Penny Tration · 27-03-2015 9:43pm

Yes, i would.

My breasts can be reconstructed, and hrt will sort the medically induced menopause.

For me, it seems a no-brainer.

Drumpot · 27-03-2015 9:46pm

My wife has the brca gene and is being strongly urged by all in the medical profession to have her ovaries and breasts removed by the cancer clinic she attends. She is only in her mid 30s. Her cousin got breast cancer and was dead within 2 years but that's not the only reason she is getting it done.

We have been advised on the statistics and there is a really high percentage chance she will get cancer the older she gets. It's up in the 70% range.

I wish people would research this stuff before talking through their arses about it.

Penny Tration · 27-03-2015 9:47pm

Drumpot wrote: »

My wife has the brca gene and is being strongly urged by all in the medical profession to have her ovaries and breasts removed by the cancer clinic she attends. She is only in her mid 30s. Her cousin got breast cancer and was dead within 2 years but that's not the only reason she is getting it done.

We have been advised on the statistics and there is a really high percentage chance she will get cancer the older she gets. It's up in the 70% range.

I wish people would research this stuff before talking through their arses about it.

That must be terrifying for you and your wife.

I wish her all the best with the surgery and recovery.

efb · 27-03-2015 9:57pm

Yes

One eyed Jack · 27-03-2015 10:05pm

I wouldn't, tbh, not even if I were aware of a 99% risk that I would develop any of the numerous types of male cancer. I place the risk to my mental health above any risk to my physical health.

I have a history in my family of heart disease, and I had an incident myself at 33 where I was just lucky to have gotten to a hospital on time to prevent a major heart failure. I was acutely aware of the symptoms given that it happened only a month after my own father had died of massive heart failure, (and this was only two years after he'd had a quad-bypass done).

I would still prefer to live my life to it's fullest than to be always conscious of the fact that I am shortening my life-span by doing so. I can certainly appreciate Angelina's reasons for electing to opt for preventative surgery, and I think raising awareness of these possible cancers and so on is a good thing. I also applauded Jade Goody for her raising awareness of cervical cancer during her short lifetime, and how she encouraged and inspired many women to get checked, but I wouldn't necessarily encourage women to go to the extremes that Angelina Jolie has chosen for herself.

If there were a history of testicular, prostate or bowel cancer in my family for example, I wouldn't elect to have what I consider elective preventative surgery done, at the risk of having it compromise my mental health. I would sooner deal with cancer IF it were to happen, rather than take extreme preventative measures as if it is an inevitability.

Wompa1 · 27-03-2015 10:08pm

Candie wrote: »

To be fair, facing something like that head-on takes guts. So many people put their heads in the sand and hope for the best, she chose to swing into action and bring on the challenges of menopause and hormone therapy instead of sitting tight and hoping for the best.

But when the alternative is death and you've got all the money in the world, no real work demands, you set your schedule...that's not brave, it's just common sense.

Wompa1 · 27-03-2015 10:09pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't, tbh, not even if I were aware of a 99% risk that I would develop any of the numerous types of male cancer. I place the risk to my mental health above any risk to my physical health.

I have a history in my family of heart disease, and I had an incident myself at 33 where I was just lucky to have gotten to a hospital on time to prevent a major heart failure. I was acutely aware of the symptoms given that it happened only a month after my own father had died of massive heart failure, (and this was only two years after he'd had a quad-bypass done).

I would still prefer to live my life to it's fullest than to be always conscious of the fact that I am shortening my life-span by doing so. I can certainly appreciate Angelina's reasons for electing to opt for preventative surgery, and I think raising awareness of these possible cancers and so on is a good thing. I also applauded Jade Goody for her raising awareness of cervical cancer during her short lifetime, and how she encouraged and inspired many women to get checked, but I wouldn't necessarily encourage women to go to the extremes that Angelina Jolie has chosen for herself.

If there were a history of testicular, prostate or bowel cancer in my family for example, I wouldn't elect to have what I consider elective preventative surgery done, at the risk of having it compromise my mental health. I would sooner deal with cancer IF it were to happen, rather than take extreme preventative measures as if it is an inevitability.

Did she shorten her life by getting the operation? I didn't think she did.

One eyed Jack · 27-03-2015 10:13pm

Wompa1 wrote: »

Did she shorten her life by getting the operation? I didn't think she did.

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Rosie Rant · 27-03-2015 10:23pm

Yes. I wouldn't hesitate.

Canis Lupus · 27-03-2015 10:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Do you imagine being diagnosed with a cancer you could have prevented would be good for your mental health?

One eyed Jack · 27-03-2015 10:32pm

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Do you imagine being diagnosed with a cancer you could have prevented would be good for your mental health?

I imagine being diagnosed with anything I could have prevented wouldn't be good for my mental health.

But I also imagine that the extreme measures I would have to take to prevent such possibilities would have a far more detrimental effect on my mental health in the meantime.

It's easy in theory to say for example that if I were to find out that I was at 99% risk of developing testicular cancer in my lifetime that I should have my sperm frozen and my testes removed, but the consequences of living with that condition would IMO have a far more detrimental effect on my mental health than knowing I have prevented one single possibility, no matter how high the risk.

Wacker The Attacker · 27-03-2015 10:37pm

No.

If cancer happens then handle it then

Saralee4 · 27-03-2015 10:39pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Yea jack but it is possible that she had an overwhelming fear of getting cancer after seeing her mother suffer from it, then to be told you have a high chance of getting it from predictive tests probably increased that fear and that would not have a good impact on your mental health either.

I think if I did have the opportunity to do something like that then I probably would if I was told the odds were that high but you don't really know how you will deal with that kind of information. Some people who consider themselves weak become really strong when faced with illness or trauma.

I dont really commend or dissaprove of Angelina Jolies choice. I think its down to her but I think the type of care and aftercare she would receive and the help with her family and being out of work is just not really an option to people who are not as privileged as she is.

It kind of reminds me of that south park episode where they figure Magic Johnson has a cure for AIDS because he's lived with it for so long. One of the characters runs around telling everyone there's a cure for aids passing by a third world country and they all cheer but turns out the cure for aids is having lots of money!

Would you undergo preventive surgery to reduce cancer risk?

Comments