No organs, no cancer?

Reading all these headlines about Angelina Jolie getting a preventative mastectomy because her stats put her at high risk... I’m curious what actual doctors think about this.

Is medicine really that cut and dry? You find a gene, you rip out the organ, and voilà—problem solved?

Assuming, of course, that you actually don't need that organ. How are we supposed to prevent liver, kidney, brain, lung, or stomach cancer?

I’m no doctor, but removing an entire organ just based on pure prevention feels extreme. It seems wild to rely solely on statistics or math when dealing with the actual causes of disease. Even when people have a tumor that can be surgically removed, it often just pops back up somewhere else anyway.

Honestly, I'm just looking to get a doctor's take on this too.

Just while we're waiting to hear back from the experts, I thought I'd mention that removing healthy breasts—or even ovaries and the uterus—isn't exactly a new thing here in the States. I remember reading this story about ten years ago about an American woman who was still in her prime fertility years (I think she was in her thirties?) and decided to just have it all removed because there was a history of cancer in her family. It made huge headlines, and people were actually cheering her on for being so "brave" and making such a "smart" call. Personally? I wasn't so sure about that move myself.

And honestly, if you look back thirty or forty years, hysterectomies were incredibly common as a preventative measure against cancer right here in America, too. People were getting healthy uteri removed left and right just for that reason. But then, just a few years back, I read a piece where the medical community basically admitted that it was largely unnecessary all along.

I don't really see that as a brave move at all, if I'm being honest—it feels more like a total cop-out to me.😁
It’s just taking the path of least resistance because people are panicking about getting sick, even though, you know, they might not even end up catching anything in the first place.
Calling it courage? Yeah, right. I guess I'd call it something else entirely.🙂

So, you're telling me it would have been better if she just sat around waiting for that breast cancer—which had an 80% chance of hitting her anyway—to go through chemo and radiation, and then maybe died after all that?
Typical CNN logic. It’s a shame she doesn't live in a small town in the Midwest where the whole village could hold a vigil over how tragic it is that she left her kids too young. 🙄

I actually had the chance to deal with a certain type of cancer myself. We knew exactly what we were looking at, the odds, everything. And honestly? I was a coward and opted for surgery right away. 🙄

Honestly, you can't find a single actual medical opinion on this anywhere
It basically boils down to there being zero doctors available to prescribe meds when you actually need them, or even just to explain what's going on professionally 🤣

Preventative mastectomies for women carrying high-risk breast cancer genes aren't exactly a new concept in modern medicine.

Breast cancer is actually one of those rare cancers where we have identified the primary culprits behind hereditary cases—specifically the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Now, it’s important to clarify: women who don't carry these specific mutations can still develop the disease—since it’s a multifactorial condition, after all—but women with a strong family history and positive genetic markers face a significantly higher risk. We're primarily talking about women whose relatives were diagnosed at a younger age, typically under 50.

Naturally, these women undergo much more frequent screenings; however, there is a significant hurdle when it comes to detecting cancer in younger patients. Because younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, tumors can be much harder to spot—they often have to grow larger before they become palpable. This stands in stark contrast to older women, where fatty tissue predominates, making even millimeter-sized growths easier to detect. On top of that, the types of cancers seen in younger women are often more aggressive—meaning they tend to grow and metastasize much faster.

It is precisely for these reasons that some women, given their positive family history and genetic profiles, choose to undergo a preventative mastectomy along with primary reconstruction.
Does this mean the risk is completely eliminated? Not quite—there is always a tiny margin (about 5% of the glandular tissue) that might not be reachable during surgery—but since the vast majority of the hormone-dependent tissue is removed, that risk is essentially minimized to almost nothing.
While breast cancer can certainly spread to other parts of the body through metastasis, if the primary tumor never develops because the tissue is gone, then there is no source from which metastases could arise.

Personally, I don't view such an undertaking as an act of cowardice or "playing it safe"—quite the opposite! It is a deeply rational and courageous decision, and honestly, it is one I would likely make myself if I were facing the exact same circumstances.

wanderingcobra76, thanks for the reply. You explained that really well. 😉

I feel like breast cancer awareness mostly stays within circles where women have actually seen it happen firsthand—you know, when it’s running through the family tree with grandmothers, moms, aunts, or sisters. It makes total sense that someone would want to get ahead of it after seeing the toll it takes on their own people.
In the States, I know those mammogram reminders come in the mail pretty regularly, but honestly, it seems like a lot of women just brush them off. People claim they're too busy, but let's be real—it's usually just excuses.

I’m betting we’re about to see a "Jolie effect" hit. Just like when Kylie went under the knife and suddenly everyone started checking themselves, right? Honestly, it's about time.

Let’s be real: mammograms aren't exactly a silver bullet for smaller tumors or younger women. My own mammogram came back totally clear, yet an experienced specialist found a lump during my ultrasound that they managed to catch just in time. You need regular ultrasounds early on. As for MRIs? They usually won't even bother with you unless there's already a diagnosis on the table. There are no guarantees in this life, so I get why people opt for mastectomies. But do I see this becoming some standard preventive protocol in our hospitals? Not a chance. Our medical centers are already drowning in patients with active diagnoses—who actually has the bandwidth for surgical prevention?

wanderingcobra76 said:Preventative mastectomies for women carrying high-risk breast cancer genes aren't exactly a new concept in modern medicine.

Breast cancer is actually one of those rare cancers where we have identified the primary culprits behind hereditary cases—specifically the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.
Now, it’s important to clarify: women who don't carry these specific mutations can still develop the disease—since it’s a multifactorial condition, after all—but women with a strong family history and positive genetic markers face a significantly higher risk. We're primarily talking about women whose relatives were diagnosed at a younger age, typically under 50.

Naturally, these women undergo much more frequent screenings; however, there is a significant hurdle when it comes to detecting cancer in younger patients. Because younger women tend to have denser breast tissue, tumors can be much harder to spot—they often have to grow larger before they become palpable. This stands in stark contrast to older women, where fatty tissue predominates, making even millimeter-sized growths easier to detect. On top of that, the types of cancers seen in younger women are often more aggressive—meaning they tend to grow and metastasize much faster.

It is precisely for these reasons that some women, given their positive family history and genetic profiles, choose to undergo a preventative mastectomy along with primary reconstruction.
Does this mean the risk is completely eliminated? Not quite—there is always a tiny margin (about 5% of the glandular tissue) that might not be reachable during surgery—but since the vast majority of the hormone-dependent tissue is removed, that risk is essentially minimized to almost nothing.
While breast cancer can certainly spread to other parts of the body through metastasis, if the primary tumor never develops because the tissue is gone, then there is no source from which metastases could arise.

Personally, I don't view such an undertaking as an act of cowardice or "playing it safe"—quite the opposite! It is a deeply rational and courageous decision, and honestly, it is one I would likely make myself if I were facing the exact same circumstances.

I couldn't agree more with your opening sentence. In fact, I think we should be incredibly grateful for scientific progress; we've reached a point where genomic analysis allows us to predict many individual health risks. It would be irresponsible to ignore that data. In these specific cases, a mastectomy can reduce the risk of developing breast cancer by about 90%.

However, I have a bit of a critique regarding your second paragraph. I’ve noticed this particular misconception popping up quite frequently lately, even in mainstream media outlets.
You did a great job explaining how Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) works. I'm not certain if this applies to Angelina Jolie's specific case, but reports suggested her risk was around 87%, likely because her mother passed away from breast cancer. While such precise figures can be reached through detailed genetic testing, it's difficult for me to comment on a specific case without having all the clinical details in hand.
The part that is technically inaccurate, though, is the implication that we "carry" these genes. The truth is, every single one of us carries the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes; they code for functional proteins in our genome that are essential for a reason. What some people actually carry are *mutations* within those genes, which produce altered versions of those proteins. Today, science has identified hundreds of different mutations, ranging from completely benign to high-risk variants. We know exactly which mutation pattern triggers a specific risk and which variants are most common in certain populations.

Look, there are plenty of ways to stay healthy, but hacking away perfectly good organs? That’s probably the absolute worst way to go about it.
If we followed that kind of twisted logic, smokers could just cut out half their lungs and assume they’re safe because cancer won't hit the side they tossed in the trash. There was a time when preventative hysterectomies were all the rage, but nowadays, most doctors will tell you straight up that it's just nonsense.
There isn't even solid proof that ripping out healthy breasts actually adds years to your life. Honestly, you might just be opening the door for cancer to pop up somewhere else entirely.
The real secret to prevention is sticking to a decent diet and living a healthy lifestyle—that’s where you actually slash your risks. I don't see any "bravery" in cutting out healthy organs, no matter what they are. It doesn't make you healthier; it just makes you more broken.

Have you seen what Greta is posting?

That’s exactly why some women with a positive family history and high-risk genes opt for preventative mastectomies and immediate reconstruction.
It doesn't mean there's zero chance anymore—since about 5% of glandular tissue can be missed during a mastectomy—but because the vast majority of hormone-sensitive breast tissue is gone, that risk drops to almost nothing.
Breast cancer can't just pop up in another organ. Sure, metastases happen, but if there’s no primary tumor because the breast tissue is gone, there's nothing to spread.

How on earth does comparing smoking or lung removal to this make any sense? 😕

I get why she did it. Her mom died from cancer, her own risk profile is huge, and she has six kids to think about. She wasn't going to gamble with them. Honestly, if I were in her shoes, I’d do the exact same thing. 🤷

edit: velvetmoose9 🙂 😘 People are going to start thinking we coordinated our replies. 😁

Jamie Rivera78 said:Look, there are plenty of ways to stay healthy, but hacking away perfectly good organs? That’s probably the absolute worst way to go about it.
If we followed that kind of twisted logic, smokers could just cut out half their lungs and assume they’re safe because cancer won't hit the side they tossed in the trash. There was a time when preventative hysterectomies were all the rage, but nowadays, most doctors will tell you straight up that it's just nonsense.
There isn't even solid proof that ripping out healthy breasts actually adds years to your life. Honestly, you might just be opening the door for cancer to pop up somewhere else entirely.
The real secret to prevention is sticking to a decent diet and living a healthy lifestyle—that’s where you actually slash your risks. I don't see any "bravery" in cutting out healthy organs, no matter what they are. It doesn't make you healthier; it just makes you more broken.

If it’s actually true that what the media reported—this 87% probability of a highly aggressive type of breast cancer—is accurate, then what specifically would you suggest to bring that risk down to 5%?
The rest of the US, and honestly the whole world, is eagerly waiting for your answer, provided it's backed by actual scientific evidence. 🙂

Giving an answer along the lines of "I'd just let Mother Nature take her course and leave it to fate" wouldn't strike me as being honest; it would just seem incredibly harsh, inhumane, and selfish, especially since we aren't talking about you, but someone else.

We aren't responsible for our genetics (which is exactly what we're talking about here), but we are *extremely* responsible for certain behaviors (specifically smoking cigarettes)—or more accurately, it's incredibly irresponsible not to be.
So, that little analogy of yours about smokers and lung removal is completely misplaced; there isn't a shred of logical connection between that and the actual situation we're discussing.

Feel free to drop a link to a peer-reviewed study from a reputable medical journal that supports your idea—you know, based on evidence-based medicine—showing how a decent diet and a healthy lifestyle can have a clinically significant impact when dealing with the specific reality of BRCA 1 and 2 and breast cancer. And besides, how would you even know if she's eating healthy or not?

Current consensus within the scientific community is that this approach isn't some fringe idea; they actually consider it to make sense.
Maybe it'll become outdated in a few years once gene therapy proves to be effective, but hey, only time will tell.

By the way, has anyone else noticed how Angelina Jolie has looked extremely underweight in recent photos, almost cachectic?
Was that intentional, or could something else be going on?

Where on earth did her doctors get that 87% figure from?

It’s like they think she’s some billionaire or something.

Sure, there's a genetic predisposition involved. But from what I understand, those odds usually hover somewhere around 10 to 15%.
I just can't wrap my head around this 87% number.

That sounds more like she already has breast cancer.

So, scientists over at Stanford University just dropped some news that might chill you out a bit: if there’s a BRCA gene mutation running through your family tree, it doesn't mean you're automatically doomed to inherit it or face a higher risk than anyone else. They dug through data from about 3,200 women who had close relatives battling breast cancer, and the results were eye-opening.

Basically, just because someone carries those BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations doesn't mean they're destined to get sick. These genes can bump up your risk by anywhere from 5 to 40 percent, but that's far from a guarantee you'll actually develop cancer—plus, the mutation isn't even passed down to every single person in the family line.

"While older studies basically shouted from the rooftops that breast cancer is way more likely in families with a history of it, we're stepping up to say that's just not the whole story," said one of the lead researchers, Dr. Allison Kurian, in a piece for the journal Clinical Oncology.

I honestly think A. Jolie’s doctors laid out all the pros and cons clearly enough. She knows exactly why she made this call—and look, if you're going to take a massive risk like that, who's really in a position to judge? 🤷.

And let's be real, those percentages don't mean squat when it's your own life on the line. I don't think anyone would just shrug their shoulders if there was a 30% higher chance of something happening, let alone more than that. Personally, I have a higher risk of developing lymphoma than the average healthy person, and trust me, I care. Even if it were just a 2% difference, it would matter to me, so seeing these bigger numbers mentioned shouldn't be a surprise. Besides, what she did isn't exactly groundbreaking; women facing breast cancer have been opting for preventative mastectomies for ages. The only real difference here is that, right now, A. Jolie is perfectly healthy.

melloworca6 said:Have you seen what Greta is posting?

That’s exactly why some women with a positive family history and high-risk genes opt for preventative mastectomies and immediate reconstruction.
It doesn't mean there's zero chance anymore—since about 5% of glandular tissue can be missed during a mastectomy—but because the vast majority of hormone-sensitive breast tissue is gone, that risk drops to almost nothing.
Breast cancer can't just pop up in another organ. Sure, metastases happen, but if there’s no primary tumor because the breast tissue is gone, there's nothing to spread.

How on earth does comparing smoking or lung removal to this make any sense? 😕

I get why she did it. Her mom died from cancer, her own risk profile is huge, and she has six kids to think about. She wasn't going to gamble with them. Honestly, if I were in her shoes, I’d do the exact same thing. 🤷

edit: velvetmoose9 🙂 😘 People are going to start thinking we coordinated our replies. 😁

It's simple math: no organ, no cancer in that organ. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
You can definitely make the comparison. Both scenarios have the same end goal: preventing cancer from hitting a specific organ. Sure, the root cause isn't identical, but the objective is the same.

Look, it’s just not the same thing. We're talking about genetics in one scenario—like breast cancer—which is basically a roll of the dice you can't control. In the other, we're talking about lifestyle choices, which you actually have a say in. Comparing the two is like comparing breast cancer to liver cirrhosis caused by heavy drinking. It's apples and oranges. You can't draw that comparison.

The genes you're born with are what they are; you can't go in and rewrite them. Sure, maybe a decent diet or exercise can nudge some risks down to a minimum, but at the end of the day, DNA is DNA. Lifestyle habits? Those are entirely within your control.

velvetmoose9 said:If it’s actually true that what the media reported—this 87% probability of a highly aggressive type of breast cancer—is accurate, then what specifically would you suggest to bring that risk down to 5%?
The rest of the US, and honestly the whole world, is eagerly waiting for your answer, provided it's backed by actual scientific evidence. 🙂

Giving an answer along the lines of "I'd just let Mother Nature take her course and leave it to fate" wouldn't strike me as being honest; it would just seem incredibly harsh, inhumane, and selfish, especially since we aren't talking about you, but someone else.

We aren't responsible for our genetics (which is exactly what we're talking about here), but we are *extremely* responsible for certain behaviors (specifically smoking cigarettes)—or more accurately, it's incredibly irresponsible not to be.
So, that little analogy of yours about smokers and lung removal is completely misplaced; there isn't a shred of logical connection between that and the actual situation we're discussing.

Feel free to drop a link to a peer-reviewed study from a reputable medical journal that supports your idea—you know, based on evidence-based medicine—showing how a decent diet and a healthy lifestyle can have a clinically significant impact when dealing with the specific reality of BRCA 1 and 2 and breast cancer. And besides, how would you even know if she's eating healthy or not?

Current consensus within the scientific community is that this approach isn't some fringe idea; they actually consider it to make sense.
Maybe it'll become outdated in a few years once gene therapy proves to be effective, but hey, only time will tell.

By the way, has anyone else noticed how Angelina Jolie has looked extremely underweight in recent photos, almost cachectic?
Was that intentional, or could something else be going on?

Look, if breasts exist, you can't usually drop that cancer risk down to 5%. If they aren't there, then sure, you can. If you take out the stomach, the risk of stomach cancer hits zero. Hope that clears things up.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that diet and lifestyle don't play a major role in breast cancer for women with BRCA 1 and 2? So what, the only option is surgery? Otherwise, 9 out of 10 will get sick? You're saying you can't influence an unlucky genetic inheritance at all?
Do you have any actual proof that preventative mastectomy actually extends life? That’s the only thing that matters here.

Jacob Stewart2 said:Where on earth did her doctors get that 87% figure from?

It’s like they think she’s some billionaire or something.

Sure, there's a genetic predisposition involved. But from what I understand, those odds usually hover somewhere around 10 to 15%.
I just can't wrap my head around this 87% number.

That sounds more like she already has breast cancer.

It isn't actually that complicated; you can pinpoint the exact risk through more detailed genetic testing. Depending on the specific type of BRCA1 mutation, the risk could be as high as "80%." Of course, that’s a bit of a simplification since many variables come into play—firstly age, and then the individual's unique genetic landscape, because there are other loci involved that contribute to the overall risk level.
We are discussing an incredibly well-defined and thoroughly researched gene here. Since we're dealing with hereditary cancer, it's almost a textbook example of "one gene, one effect"—though I'm using those terms loosely. Other general risks, where you typically see lower percentages, depend heavily on how they are expressed or measured; they usually lack such a strong genetic component and direct correlation.

Jamie Rivera78 said:So, scientists over at Stanford University just dropped some news that might chill you out a bit: if there’s a BRCA gene mutation running through your family tree, it doesn't mean you're automatically doomed to inherit it or face a higher risk than anyone else. They dug through data from about 3,200 women who had close relatives battling breast cancer, and the results were eye-opening.

Basically, just because someone carries those BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations doesn't mean they're destined to get sick. These genes can bump up your risk by anywhere from 5 to 40 percent, but that's far from a guarantee you'll actually develop cancer—plus, the mutation isn't even passed down to every single person in the family line.

"While older studies basically shouted from the rooftops that breast cancer is way more likely in families with a history of it, we're stepping up to say that's just not the whole story," said one of the lead researchers, Dr. Allison Kurian, in a piece for the journal Clinical Oncology.

Since you're "quoting" someone, why not provide a reference? That way, you might actually get a chance to read what was precisely stated. In my view, there is a massive distinction between discussing an individual who is a carrier of a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and someone who is a non-carrier of those family-specific mutations. This specific study link focuses on that second group and actually critiques previous research that suggested increased breast cancer risk in non-carriers.
Even so, Allison and her work don't negate the reality of the risk faced by individuals with these mutations, as that has been established in countless studies. As far as I know, her research—and the work of the group she belongs to—focuses on the population diversity within the US regarding breast cancer. They have even gone so far as to challenge the misconception that mastectomies as an early-stage preventative treatment are becoming a widespread "trend"; her stance is actually the opposite.

So, using this quasi-quote doesn't do anything to support the inaccuracies you initially presented.