Miss D.C. to have breasts removed after Miss America pageant.

[dps]

I bet breast cancer gets more funding than prostate cancer, too.

The reality is that prior to the Susan G Komen Foundation, no one talked about breast cancer, and if I remember correctly, it was one of the least-funded cancer research categories in the US.

I don't know about the relative amounts of funding given to various cancers, but heck, before the early 1970's, people didn't even talk publicly about cancer, period.  There was a terrible social stigma about the disease, for reasons I didn't then and don't now quite understand.  Part of it was because survival rates back then were lower than they are now, and people didn't want employers or potential employers to know that they had cancer, because it hurt your job prospects so badly, but there was more to it than that.

[merithyn]

And imagine that when it involved such a highly-sexualized part of the female body like the breasts. It was absolutely taboo to discuss it even with your closest friends. I know that when my aunt got it, my mom was almost too embarassed to tell my dad what kind of cancer it was.

[PDH]

KFC internally used to not refer to them as "chicken breasts" but as "keels" - my friend Rich so reported to me when he worked there.  Just the simple word would inflame men's passions and they would leap over the counter and start fucking the chickens right there, or something.

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm highly likely to end up with one

Then why not get them removed right now? There has to be a reason not to, right?

[CountDeMoney]

And imagine that when it involved such a highly-sexualized part of the female body like the breasts. It was absolutely taboo to discuss it even with your closest friends. I know that when my aunt got it, my mom was almost too embarassed to tell my dad what kind of cancer it was.

Should've just said, "Had 'em removed because they kept getting in the way."  I'd have bought that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'd need real numbers though. On the "not all women are screened" that's moot here as she obviously would be someone getting more-than-regular screenings.

Of people who have breast cancer caught early, what percentage come out of it fine? Of people who have the genetic issue she has, what percentage get breast cancer at all?

I could remove my testicles and prostate to pre-emptively protect myself from cancer of either organ, but there are literally hundreds of things I could do that might prevent certain cancers but given the relatively low risk would not be justified. Maybe this is (I'm open to the idea), but I'd need actual statistics here to say.

If you had cryptorchidism we'd prophylactically remove your testicles given how likely it is for cancer to occur in such a person. I've never heard of a familial testicular cancer syndrome. The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer. Women with BRCA have a 65% chance of getting breast cancer. You have a 0.4% chance of getting testicular cancer. It would unreasonable for a urologist to prophylactically remove your testicles unless you had a significant risk factor in your history.

The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.

Thanks for the data, that makes it sound reasonable. Unlike the other Languish posters here I'm glad to see you didn't just make a blind appeal to authority. Guys, I'm married to a doctor, I know they usually know what they're talking about--but they also have a responsibility to back up their statements if you ask them to. I never questioned Fate's opinion, just said I wanted some data. The 65% thing makes it sound pretty reasonable for that disorder, and if the specific data for this woman's disease doesn't exist I don't think it unreasonable to be cautious given the high rates seen with other genetic predispositions.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I bet breast cancer gets more funding than prostate cancer, too.

Nothing prevents men from having a blue ribbon for prostate cancer, but then men would have to admit that they a.) have a prostate, and b.) get exams to make sure that they're not enlarged/endangered. The reality is that prior to the Susan G Komen Foundation, no one talked about breast cancer, and if I remember correctly, it was one of the least-funded cancer research categories in the US. I certainly had never heard of it before the pink ribbon came out. My best guess is that if there was a greater push by men to get other men to have prostate exams, to raise money and awareness about prostate cancer, etc., it would be just as funded as breast cancer now is.

I can also honestly say that the day that I feel my first lump - and I'm highly likely to end up with one since I have a history of ovarian cancer and there's breast cancer on both sides of the family - I will be planning to have both girls excised. If I knew that it wasn't a question of if but when, I would be talking to my doctor tomorrow. As it is, with a 50/50 chance, I've considered it.

Another point is that while mammograms are great, they're highly ineffective in women under the age of 40 or 45. I've had mammograms since I was 31 because of the cancer. The techs and the radiologists said that it was good that I got them, but they really weren't all that effective. The tissue is far too dense to see much of anything. Self-exams were much better, but even they have their problems. For women who can pretty much expect to have breast cancer in their 20s and 30s, it's ridiculously dangerous. I, personally, wouldn't take the chance of leaving things intact.

Is she using this for attention? Probably. Does it negate how smart and brave that I think it is? Nope, not at all.

Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.

[MadImmortalMan]

What are the risks of getting a pre-emptive mastectomy? It's basically chopping off part of the body, so there can't be no risk.

[Fate]

What are the risks of getting a pre-emptive mastectomy? It's basically chopping off part of the body, so there can't be no risk.

There's a nerve in that area that can be damaged by surgery, there is a risk of infection, poor wound healing, etc. Boilerplate stuff.

[merithyn]

I'm highly likely to end up with one

Then why not get them removed right now? There has to be a reason not to, right?

There are a lot of reasons for me not to, not the least of which is that while the risk is higher for me than the average woman, my risks are still lower than half. I'm also too vain to go that route until I have to. On top of that, I'm now past the age of 40, so mammograms and self-exams will be much more effective in finding tumors early.

[Fate]

Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.

That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.

[merithyn]

Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.

That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.

Is there another, better way to test for prostate cancer? I understood that there was a blood test on the horizon. Has that come to fruition yet?

[CountDeMoney]

Guys, I'm married to a doctor, I know they usually know what they're talking about--but they also have a responsibility to back up their statements if you ask them to.

Never trust a doctor who never read Walker Percy.

[Fate]

Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.

That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.

Is there another, better way to test for prostate cancer? I understood that there was a blood test on the horizon. Has that come to fruition yet?

It's a huge can of worms. We don't have a better test right now. If the patient wants to be screen and has greater than 10 years life expectancy (i.e. you're more likely to die of prostate cancer before you die of something else), then you get screened. The epidemiological data doesn't show much (if any) benefit from screening at the population level, but it does detect prostate cancer. The problem is all of the people that it says have prostate cancer who subsequently suffer significant morbidity from treatment with a final result negative for cancer.

[CountDeMoney]

I self-screen for prostate anyway.