Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women who receive lumpectomies live longer? I’ve never heard that - I was told surgical is the same. But OP is talking about prophylactic mastectomies, I think - not BC treatment.

If only makes sense if someone is BRCA positive, or tests positive for another gene. And some people test negative for the gene, but gave a very strong family history. But I can’t imagine anyone in the general population would do this (unless trans male).

It may be because women who get lumpectomies often also get radiation, which can increase survival statistics.

My sister had a unilateral mastectomy. I had a lumpectomy and radiation. They both have their downsides, but I am grateful I had the option to do a lumpectomy and while radiation wasn’t awesome, it’s well behind me now and I’m glad I didn’t have to have a mastectomy.

Anonymous wrote:Women who receive lumpectomies live longer? I’ve never heard that - I was told surgical is the same. But OP is talking about prophylactic mastectomies, I think - not BC treatment.

If only makes sense if someone is BRCA positive, or tests positive for another gene. And some people test negative for the gene, but gave a very strong family history. But I can’t imagine anyone in the general population would do this (unless trans male).

It may be because women who get lumpectomies often also get radiation, which can increase survival statistics.

^^Told *survival* is the same.

Women who receive lumpectomies live longer? I’ve never heard that - I was told surgical is the same. But OP is talking about prophylactic mastectomies, I think - not BC treatment.

If only makes sense if someone is BRCA positive, or tests positive for another gene. And some people test negative for the gene, but gave a very strong family history. But I can’t imagine anyone in the general population would do this (unless trans male).

As noted, some people do prophylactic mastectomies. However, mastectomies do not always confer a survival benefit, and there are even recent studies that suggest that for some stages of cancer, women who receive lumpectomies live longer.

I did this. At age 46- learned of BRCA gene after family member had cancer diagnosis. While I have no regrets doing it and did straight to implant, it was a major surgery with lasting psychological and physical effects. It is not a boob job. I have no feeling in my breasts and scaring from tissue that died on one nipple. I cannot do push ups yet and still have some tightness a year post surgery. I feel an immense sense of relief that I reduced my risk of breast cancer but it is not a decision to be taken lightly.

I have a friend who did this. It was pretty extreme and a long recovery. That seems like a lot of risk for something she may or may not have gotten and may have been treatable.

I have an elevated risk of BC (1/4) and alternate between a mammo or MRI every 6 months. So my focus is on early detection.

Many women can be treated with breast conserving surgery which is way less invasive and doesn’t normally require reconstruction. Get your annual mammogram! Early detection makes a big difference in treatment options.

Because the 1/8 in the general population includes people with known family history, or BRCA/related genetic diagnosis, who DO tend to get this done.

The rest of us--a far higher proportion than the 1/8 with the higher-risk folks factored in--don't need it.

NP here. I'll gladly do it. Where do I sign up? I don't need these things any longer.

You go first OP.

I personally know three women in their late 30s who did get preventative mastectomies. BC runs in their families and they had one of the genes, so when they were done having kids/breastfeeding, they had the surgery. I would do the same if I knew I was at increased risk. For my friends it was covered by insurance, I don’t think that would be the case if they didn’t have the gene and family history.

My friends are also lucky to be able to take time off work, they also have involved husbands and parents who were able to pitch in with their kids.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!

The other question you need to consider is "how many women would a mastectomy actually have saved their life? And how many women were treated and survived, post diagnosis?"

You are casually suggesting an enormous surgery, that is not without complications and problems. It has recovery time, infection risks, etc. It is not like a vasectomy "oh, just go get one and recover on the couch for a day!". It's a massive removal of tissue, glands and sometimes lymphnodes.

Just wondering...