This is my sincere plead to all the women-folk not to overlook the importance of getting mammograms done on regular basis; especially the ones who are over thirty. Recently, someone in my close family found out the hard way, when the cancer had spread out of the breast area. She had one surgery recently, and now we are nerveously waiting for the results of bone marrow tests.
I just cannot underline the importance well enough. Make it a habit of going through this test on your birthday; for your loved ones. It maybe the best present you could ever give to yourself.
He's right, this disease is on the rise. Although it applies to both genders but more so to women. The self-examination have recently been detested by the medical society thats why its urged to get a regular checkup every year.
I don't how it is arranged in other countries, but here all women above 30 and under 70/80 (?) (i think) get an invitation every 2 years (?) to participate in breast-cancer screening. if this is also the case there u should take part in it.
m glad u brought it up.... to tell u the truth.. i dunno much about breast cancer.. but after reading ur post i was just wondering if there are sum apparent reasons for gettin it..?!?!
well like a lot of cancer you can make a devision between familial and sporadic breastcancer.
although called sporadic, this variant is the most common accounting for 90% of the cases.
Familial breatcancer is cancer which is caused by a mutation which is genetically inherited. therefor if such mutation is present a lot of female members of a family get it, normally on a younger age than the sporadic type. and they get it a second time more often........if someone in ur family (first degree relatives)had breast-cancer on a relatively young age you can have genetic screening in order to find out if u have a higher risk too.
with respect to the sporadic type: this is also based on a genetic mutation*s*, but these are not inherited, they occur spontaneously. so it is difficult to predict who is going to get it, therefor (in holland at least) they have implemented these 2-year screening systems based on mammograms in order to find cancer in an as early stage as possible.
This means.. if u dont hav a family history of breast cancer... all u gotta worry about is sporadic type? its not inherited but the causes are not known yet... thats wut i understand till now . m i rite?!
yes, that’s true. but watch out! although it’s called sporadic, it’s the most common form of breastcancer (90%). (basically the only difference between these two is the underlying inheritance of the mutation; u cannot distinguish the two on a mammogram)
familial often occurs between 20-40 and sporadic is usually between 40-70.
so, again if u have the mutation (familial), you’re very likely to get breastcancer (but it accounts for only 5% of theTOTAL breatcancer incidence), and if u don’t have the mutation you can get the sporadic type (most common).
with respect to rsik factors for the sporadic type…hhhhhmmmmmmmmmm…can’t come up with one at the moment……will have to look it up :~) wait till tomorrow
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Aleezay: *
**This means.. if u dont hav a family history of breast cancer... all u gotta worry about is sporadic type? its not inherited but the causes are not known yet... thats wut i understand till now . m i rite?! *
[/QUOTE]
another thing i like to add: it's incorrect to say 'familial history' of breastcancer, because it is quite well possible that a daughter's mother had (sporadic) breastcancer at her 70, but that won't increase her risk.
the correct statement would be: 'family history of breastcancer at a relatively young age'
a few numbers on breastcancer, to show how huge this problem is.
the numbers are form the dutch (=western) population, but they give a reasonable indication of the paki situation too:
most breastcancer patients are over 60 years
1 in 10 women
will get breastcancer in her life
1 in 22 will die from breastcancer
with respect to riskfactors, there aren’t many known, and those which are known there infuence isn’t that clear, but still i’m putting them here:
family history of breastcancer (=especially first degree: mom, sister)
baring of first child over the age of 34
obesity/too high fat intake
(- a few others…with a lower effect)
don't know the exact age, but i think from an age of 40 onwards.
if i remember correctly that's also the age above which women in holland are invited for the breatcancer screening.....
As far as i know and i can recall, its not only family history and heredity that accounts for breast cancer, thought its a fact that its more often found in women who have a strong family hitory.....some other factors are....
Early menarche and late menopause
Women who could not or do not bare children...nulliparous in medical terms,or bearing ur first child in an old age....
Obesity
Excess of estrogen hormones, specially if taken in the form of tablets , whether for treatments or as contraceptives
And its always useful to take precautionary measures and get invesigations done than Allah forbid to suffer a disease at a later stage....
[QUOTE] Originally posted by *kashish: *
As far as i know and i can recall, its not only family history and heredity that accounts for breast cancer, thought its a fact that its more often found in women who have a strong family hitory.....some other factors are....
Early menarche and late menopause
Women who could not or do not bare children...nulliparous in medical terms,or bearing ur first child in an old age....
Obesity
Excess of estrogen hormones, specially if taken in the form of tablets , whether for treatments or as contraceptives
And its always useful to take precautionary measures and get invesigations done than Allah forbid to suffer a disease at a later stage....
[/QUOTE]
all these factors have in common: excess of etrogens! and that's the main factor!
this too distuingishes between incidence in men and females
An interesting piece of recent research shows the importance of having children and breastfeeding for teh prevention of breast cancer.
Cancer link to fall in breast feeding
Sarah Boseley, health editor
Friday July 19, 2002
The Guardian
The cultural shift within the UK and other prosperous countries in modern times, which has led to women having few children and breastfeeding their babies for a few months at most, are the main causes of the surge in breast cancer, according to a new study.
A group of scientists today publish a piece of work in the Lancet medical journal which concludes that if women in the UK went back to an era when they bore six children and breastfed each for two years, the numbers of breast cancer cases would be halved.
The authors, Valerie Beral of Cancer Research UK and colleagues in the collaborative group on hormonal factors in breast cancer, recognise the impracticality of turning back the clock.
However, they say, the recognition that breastfeeding protects against breast cancer may help in the discovery of drugs that can mimic the effects. “In the meantime, important reductions in breast cancer incidence could be achieved if women considered breastfeeding each child for longer than they do now.”
Professor Beral said: “Two and a half centuries ago, people knew that breast cancer was common among nuns in Italy. It’s been suspected for a very long time that breast feeding and the number of children was important - it was pretty well-known that not using the breasts for the purpose for which they were designed was a major cause of breast cancer.”
But in the 1970s, science became fixated with the age at which women first had babies as an important factor in breast cancer. Now it seems that many things are interlinked, but that the most important may be the number of children and duration of breastfeeding. Professor Beral and colleagues say in their paper that each birth reduces the risk of breast cancer by 7%, while every year of breastfeeding cuts it by 4.3% more.
If women in the UK had the same family sizes and breastfeeding habits as those in the developing world, they say, the cumulative incidence of breast cancer here would be cut by more than half, from 6.3 to 2.7 per 100 women by the age of 70. Part of the reduction in risk is due to larger families, but two-thirds of it is due to breastfeeding.
Nobody believes that women would want to increase the size of their families, but breastfeeding for longer could be a feasible way of cutting cancer risk. According to the paper, if women in developed countries continued to have on average 2.5 children, but breastfed each one for six months longer than now, then around 25,000 cancers would be prevented each year, which is about 5% of the total. Increasing breastfeeding by 12 months would prevent 50,000 cancers, or 11% of the total today, they say.
In England and Wales in 2000, 71% of mothers started to breastfeed, according to the Department of Health’s Infant Feeding Survey. By six weeks, only 42% were still breastfeeding and by six months, all but 21% had given up.
Breastfeeding for the sort of length of time it is done in developing countries would raise practical, social and cultural difficulties in many developed countries. The 2000 survey showed that half of all mothers were working by the time their babies were eight to nine months old, even though mostly on a part-time basis.
…will have to look it up :~) wait till tomorrow 
