• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Angelina Jolie

both of my dad's sisters had breast cancer, I'll get tested for the gene at some point. Kind of scary, but definitely nothing to mess around with.
 
Ladies are forced to get tattoos? The can make a vagina from a penis, and vice versa, but no nipple? :confused:
 
Nipples can be reconstructed from tissue from elsewhere on your body, but there is risk that the tissue will not take. And afterwards there is still tattooing so the new nipple matches the one on the other side colorwise.
 
angelina-jolie-tomb-raider.jpg
 
Sharon Osborne revealed a few months back that she had a double mastectomy for the same reasons.
 
i did have an interesting conversation with my coworker about this today.
her mom and grandma both had breast cancer and did chemo, etc. she's more or less resigned herself to the fact that she will have it, but is against testing for it because she'd rather let life run its course and doesn't like the idea of people getting tested and drastically changing their life on what MIGHT happen.

i guess i understand this mentality, but at the same time I plan to have kids and I feel like it's a responsible thing to do. Just like I wouldn't buy a house without getting it inspected, I'd want to get myself inspected for possible issues. I dunno. That said, I don't know what I would do if I do have the gene, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
..but if I get tested and have the gene and don't get a mastectomy, is that any different than just finding something farther down the road during a routine mammogram? in that case, what's the point of getting tested?


....welcome to my stream of consciousness about breast cancer.
 
lbE08 said:
i did have an interesting conversation with my coworker about this today.
her mom and grandma both had breast cancer and did chemo, etc. she's more or less resigned herself to the fact that she will have it, but is against testing for it because she'd rather let life run its course and doesn't like the idea of people getting tested and drastically changing their life on what MIGHT happen.

i guess i understand this mentality, but at the same time I plan to have kids and I feel like it's a responsible thing to do. Just like I wouldn't buy a house without getting it inspected, I'd want to get myself inspected for possible issues. I dunno. That said, I don't know what I would do if I do have the gene, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
..but if I get tested and have the gene and don't get a mastectomy, is that any different than just finding something farther down the road during a routine mammogram? in that case, what's the point of getting tested?


....welcome to my stream of consciousness about breast cancer.
Click to expand...

The widely accepted age to begin annual mammograms is 40 (although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women begin screening at age 50 and repeat the test every two years). If you did have the gene & chose not to do a mastectomy, then the likely recommendation would be for you to begin annual mammograms sooner.
 
heard this morning that the gene mapping to see your chances cost you around $3000
 
lbE08 said:
i did have an interesting conversation with my coworker about this today.
her mom and grandma both had breast cancer and did chemo, etc. she's more or less resigned herself to the fact that she will have it, but is against testing for it because she'd rather let life run its course and doesn't like the idea of people getting tested and drastically changing their life on what MIGHT happen.

i guess i understand this mentality, but at the same time I plan to have kids and I feel like it's a responsible thing to do. Just like I wouldn't buy a house without getting it inspected, I'd want to get myself inspected for possible issues. I dunno. That said, I don't know what I would do if I do have the gene, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
..but if I get tested and have the gene and don't get a mastectomy, is that any different than just finding something farther down the road during a routine mammogram? in that case, what's the point of getting tested?


....welcome to my stream of consciousness about breast cancer.
Click to expand...

This is going to be a very interesting topic for the next few years.
 
DeaconCav06 said:
A beauty queen already did this.

Why wouldn't this just result in hyper vigilance and preventative testing on a more frequent basis?
Click to expand...

Because the sensitivity of screening mammography is around 80%, and that's taking all comers. In younger women, who tend to have more fibroglandular tissue, the sensitivity is even lower.
 
DeaconPeach said:
The widely accepted age to begin annual mammograms is 40 (although the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends women begin screening at age 50 and repeat the test every two years). If you did have the gene & chose not to do a mastectomy, then the likely recommendation would be for you to begin annual mammograms sooner.
Click to expand...

Or MRI. Or both. The accepted standard is that high risk women - defined as a 25% lifetime risk or higher - should be screened at least biennially with MRI.
 
lbE08 said:
i did have an interesting conversation with my coworker about this today.
her mom and grandma both had breast cancer and did chemo, etc. she's more or less resigned herself to the fact that she will have it, but is against testing for it because she'd rather let life run its course and doesn't like the idea of people getting tested and drastically changing their life on what MIGHT happen.

i guess i understand this mentality, but at the same time I plan to have kids and I feel like it's a responsible thing to do. Just like I wouldn't buy a house without getting it inspected, I'd want to get myself inspected for possible issues. I dunno. That said, I don't know what I would do if I do have the gene, I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
..but if I get tested and have the gene and don't get a mastectomy, is that any different than just finding something farther down the road during a routine mammogram? in that case, what's the point of getting tested?


....welcome to my stream of consciousness about breast cancer.
Click to expand...

So does she wear a seatbelt? or carry insurance?
 
HeavyPetter said:
So does she wear a seatbelt? or carry insurance?
Click to expand...

yeah, she's just against the idea of radically changing your life RIGHT NOW on the chance (however great) something might happen in the future. so while she might get tested, she absolutely wouldn't get a mastectomy ... so she doesn't see the point of getting tested. i can't fault her for that, but i just can't process it that easily.
she also doesn't plan to have kids, so i guess she doesn't see the parental responsibility/possibility of passing the gene on quite the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top