Not Pregnancy Related - Breast Cancer

Re: Not Pregnancy Related - Breast Cancer

• Options

  Wering member

  March 2015

  I saw that this morning as well. I lost my mom to breast cancer in 2011 - she was only 56 years old. It is comforting to know that there are some things that just AREN'T preventable. However, for anyone reading this concerned about breast cancer, know that there are a few things you CAN do to lower your risk. Specifically - I delivered my first baby by the age of 30 and breast fed my daughter for more than 1 year. 

  
  

  If you have a family history, you owe it to yourself to make an appointment with a breast cancer specialist. They can help you go over your risks, assess any life changes you might need to make, and set up a treatment plan (even if it's just starting mammograms at 40).
  

  
  

  
  

  https://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/reproductive-history-fact-sheet
  

  Report1 Reply
• Options

  queendenisek member

  March 2015

  I'll definitely check it out. I lost my mom to breast cancer on 2012, and she too was just 56. I miss her every day and especially now that I'm finally pregnant with my first. But I have to say my MIL has been phenomenal. Anyway, a little off topic, but thoughtful share. Thanks for sharing the article.

  Report1 Reply
• Loading the player...
• Options

  JemHolo2015 member

  March 2015

  Cancer has existed for a really long time (supported by this article!).  It's prevalence has increased drastically in the past 20-30 years, though.  From everything I've read, there are a few possible explanations for this, all of which could be working together to increase the incidence.

  
  

  First, people are living longer.  Cancer is primarily a disease of the elderly.  Though there are some cancers that strike young, the majority of people who have cancer get it after the age of 50.  In 1750, the average life expectancy was 36.  People simply didn't live long enough to get cancer.  Now, life expectancy in the US is in the 70's and 80's for certain demographics.  As a result, many, many more people are living long enough to get cancer.

  
  

  Second (and this is tied to the first), we've eradicated or substantially controlled a lot of the diseases that used to kill people off before they got cancer.  Initially this was things like routine viruses, polio, measles, etc.  In the more recent past, we've made massive strides in reducing the risk of death from heart disease.  People have to die somehow, and very few die purely of old age.  If they aren't going to die of communicable diseases and heart disease, cancer is the next major culprit.

  
  

  Last, there may be an increased risk of cancer due to environmental exposures that weren't a factor 4,000 years ago.  The truth is that we don't know a lot about what factors might increase the risk of certain types of cancer.  There are some links that are clear (e.g., asbestos and mesothelioma), but others where the potential impact is less certain (food additives, cell phones, laptops, wifi signals, etc.).  

  
  

  More people are getting, and will continue to get, cancer as a result of all of these things.  I actually just heard something on NPR last week about whether we are close to a cure for cancer, and one of the points that the speaker made was that if we cure cancer we'll just move on to whatever pops up as the next thing that's killing most elderly people because, as noted before, people have to die somehow.  

  
  

  Also, I don't want anyone to think that any of this means I'm not sympathetic to losing someone to cancer!  I lost my mother in law to cancer at age 56, 6 years ago, and we miss her all the time, but especially now with the first grandchild on the way.  Cancer is a horrible disease and I hope they find the cure soon.  The science behind its prevalance is just very interesting.

  Report1 Reply
• Options

  Miz_Liz member

  March 2015

  JemHolo2015 said:

  Cancer has existed for a really long time (supported by this article!).  It's prevalence has increased drastically in the past 20-30 years, though.  From everything I've read, there are a few possible explanations for this, all of which could be working together to increase the incidence.

  
  

  First, people are living longer.  Cancer is primarily a disease of the elderly.  Though there are some cancers that strike young, the majority of people who have cancer get it after the age of 50.  In 1750, the average life expectancy was 36.  People simply didn't live long enough to get cancer.  Now, life expectancy in the US is in the 70's and 80's for certain demographics.  As a result, many, many more people are living long enough to get cancer.

  
  

  Second (and this is tied to the first), we've eradicated or substantially controlled a lot of the diseases that used to kill people off before they got cancer.  Initially this was things like routine viruses, polio, measles, etc.  In the more recent past, we've made massive strides in reducing the risk of death from heart disease.  People have to die somehow, and very few die purely of old age.  If they aren't going to die of communicable diseases and heart disease, cancer is the next major culprit.

  
  

  Last, there may be an increased risk of cancer due to environmental exposures that weren't a factor 4,000 years ago.  The truth is that we don't know a lot about what factors might increase the risk of certain types of cancer.  There are some links that are clear (e.g., asbestos and mesothelioma), but others where the potential impact is less certain (food additives, cell phones, laptops, wifi signals, etc.).  

  
  

  More people are getting, and will continue to get, cancer as a result of all of these things.  I actually just heard something on NPR last week about whether we are close to a cure for cancer, and one of the points that the speaker made was that if we cure cancer we'll just move on to whatever pops up as the next thing that's killing most elderly people because, as noted before, people have to die somehow.  

  
  

  Also, I don't want anyone to think that any of this means I'm not sympathetic to losing someone to cancer!  I lost my mother in law to cancer at age 56, 6 years ago, and we miss her all the time, but especially now with the first grandchild on the way.  Cancer is a horrible disease and I hope they find the cure soon.  The science behind its prevalance is just very interesting.

  
  
  
  I totally agree! And your post did not sound like you are not sympathetic to people losing people to cancer - you make some great points and I think you are spot on. Sorry to all of you ladies who have lost someone you love to cancer - it is so hard!

  Report0 Reply
• Options

  staciedw member

  March 2015

  I lost my mother when she was only 48 She found it when she was only 34 and supposedly was cured , but the doctor must have missed something. Cancer sucks and is not just for the elderly . I was only 21 when she passed. She did everything she could money didn't matter she just wanted to live , I guess sometimes there is nothing you can do. Sad she won't get to meet my second child , but glad she got to meet my first before she passed.
  Interesting read though, Thanks for sharing this story!

  Report0 Reply
• Options

  Miz_Liz member

  March 2015

  @staciedw I am so sorry for your loss, I can't even imagine how hard that must have been and still is for you. You are absolutely right, it is not just for the elderly!

  Report1 Reply