3 ms·
I'd bet the surgery was not recommended for some of them. BRCA isn't a death sentence just because you've tested positive (assuming you haven't presented with a
by stevehawk 7y ago
I'd bet the surgery was not recommended for some of them. BRCA isn't a death sentence just because you've tested positive (assuming you haven't presented with any symptoms). If you're in your 20s or 30s the "experts" usually tell you to stay proactive on monitoring/medical appointments (self breast exams, ultrasounds of ovaries/uterus, etc) until you're done having children. Once you're done with having children you should consider a double mastectomy and possible hysterectomy.
But we live in the age of Google. Our ability to search the Internet tends to result in patients making horrific decisions. My wife is a breast cancer surgeon and has a late 20s BRCA patient that presented with a significant breast mass six months ago. She refused any of the advised treatments because she was breast feeding at the time and stated to my wife, with a straight face, she would simply cut out sugar because she read that helps. Obviously my wife told her otherwise. Same lady came back in recently to finally seek treatment and she has a 30cm mass now. She's not even a candidate for surgery anymore because you wouldn't be able to close the wound post-op. But hey, imagine what it would have been like if she had kept eating sugar, right? Silly "experts".
- Alex3917 7y agoHysterectomy makes much more sense than double mastectomy. Breast cancer is detectable and in most cases treatable, whereas ovarian cancer can't really be detected until it's already fatal.
- stevehawk 7y agoMastectomy is the preferred treatment for a lot of breast cancers, particularly BRCA. Otherwise the woman or man is likely to just be back in a few years for treatment when they develop the cancer in a different spot.