Abortion/breast cancer linked

[PinkGirl]

Is 'not increasing' the same thing as 'lowering'???

[tricia keegan]

I was very young when I suffered a late misscarraige and it was on my chart as an abortion which upset me at the time until my Dr explained, but I wonder if this info had anything to do with my diagnosis as I went on to have two more late miscarraige's before having a full term baby. I suppose we're always looking for a reason for this cancer though!

[Jackie07]

< decreasing...

= remaining the same...

> increasing

Besides decreasing and increasing, there is a possibility of 'no change' or 'statistically not significant'.

[Not increasing = either decreasing or remaining the same (no change).]

[Carol Carlson]

I had my 3 children while in my 20's, breast fed them,
exercized regularly for years, ate home grown veggies, canned so had them throughout the winter, did not overly indulge in alcohol, etc. and no family history of B.C. My only risk factor was using hormone replacement during menapause.
I agree with Debbie... it's a crap shoot.... you either get it or you don't...
Carol
Dx IDC '04 2.2 cm. 4/ 18 nodes positive...
7 years out and healthy

[hutchibk]

It is a crap shoot to a degree, I certainly agree, but the more we know, the more we can teach those coming behind us to try and avoid the avoidable known risk factors as we learn about them. In my opinion it's incumbent upon us as survivors to share all that we learn with others as effectively as we can...

(I know I am stating the obvious, but HRT is also proven in the last decade to be a very large risk factor...) "With longer follow-up results available, there remains a cumulative, statistically significant increase in breast cancers in the combined hormone therapy group, and the cancers more commonly had lymph node involvement," write researcher Rowan T. Chlebowski, MD, PhD, of Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif., and colleagues.
and
http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ati-2008-12-15

[norkdo]

Here is my problem with statistics related to things that may or may not cause breast cancer:

Estrogen: Some things do have a causative effect (i.e. only in hormone positive b.c., would the elevated hormones left "suspended" after abortion or miscarriage possibly cause breast cancer...we all know by now that estrogen has a brutal effect on breast tissue after menopause when one's progesterone is no longer available to mitigate its effects....but do we know if the hormones left suspended after abortion/miscarriage are ONLY estrogen??) For a good number of women on this HER2 site, however, our cancer had nothing to do with hormones cos we are hormone negative. Still, that taint "omg abortions/miscarriages must have caused the breast cancer" is left largely unexamined and hormone negative BC people are going to mistakenly blame those things for their cancer.

Coincidence: When reading a study about a suggested cause of Breast Cancer, we keep forgetting that the designer of the research project NEVER HAD TO BOTHER ANALYZING CAUSE AND EFFECT. Rather, it suffices as good, scientific research if two things coexist in statistical significance. For example: if you are alive in North America you have eaten french fries. Often. unless your figure is highly important to you you are a fairly regular consumer of french fries. Do french fries cause breast cancer? No. But those with breast cancer have eaten french fries, so the study would have us blaming french fries for our cancer. Now there is a coincidence possible that, say a thousand people divided into two groups might have a statistically significant different group rate for french fry consumption. Via coincidence. If the BC group had the higher french fry rate we would be blaming BC on french fries. Ridiculous.

Statistical Minorities: I don't know about you, but I am floored, reading the Signature lines of people on this site who went from Stage 0 or Stage I to Stage IV in almost no time flat. They are alive and NED, tons of them, after metastasis. They totally defy the mortality predictors and science. (My onc says he would not allow me a resection should I metastasize, as statistically or whatever, BC is not a good cancer for that. It will just pop up on another organ, or whatever. Thank God I don't believe him. Thank God all the signature lines I have read today have defied him.) When you consider the amount of energy and money put into the idea of catching BC in stages 0 or I, I have to question the benefit. Tons and tons of women go from Stage 0 or I to Stage IV in no time flat.

I am a smoker, I drink, I never have been pregnant at all, I got my period young (11 yrs old). I have cancer.
When my mom was the age I am now she had breast cancer. She never smoked, never drank, and was pregnant a total of seven times, and got her period late. I have no idea if her cancer was HER2 cos it was the 1970's.
How I wish it was fifty years from now and we actually knew what causes breast cancer, specifically each kind of BC. What is shameful is that sixty five years of breast cancer research and BC mortality has remained constant, per capita, as has the incidence of it. Other cancers have had like, 65% drop in those areas. (Please correct my stats if they are incorrect.) Frustrated by learning today Komen only donates 6% of their donations to research. Here we are, clutching at straws to prevent other women from getting it, when in fact we are drowning in a lack of knowing why it occurs.

[tricia keegan]

Sue's post above hits on my comments, I had three very late miscarraige's (26/24/34 weeks) which was referred to on my medical notes as abortion and happened at a very young age so maybe there is something in this!
I've never taken HRT but did take the birth control pill for many years which I attribute to my dx..

[Debbie L.]

"Here we are, clutching at straws to prevent other women from getting it, when in fact we are drowning in a lack of knowing why it occurs."

AMEN, Nora!

I would add that we don't know (and have only minimally investigated) why it recurs (metastasizes). Our focus has been almost entirely on killing the cancer cells. That has not been working well enough. I think it's time to shift our focus to these two areas (primary prevention and metastasis prevention).

There's also the possibility that we can learn how to prevent it without necessarily knowing exactly WHY it happens to some women and not to most women.

Those with disease present as they read this may see this focus as "writing them off" and for that, I apologize and try to explain: I cannot imagine a way that learning how to do either of these things (prevent breast cancer in the first place or prevent metastasis, in ways other than simple cell-killing) could NOT affect our ability to treat and control disease once it occurs. I think that refocusing our efforts will benefit everyone, and all stages, of breast cancer.

I don't mean to say that we have not made some progress. Certainly HER2-targeted treatments, and endocrine-targeted treatments, HAVE made big differences to large numbers of people -- both in life-saving and life-prolonging ways. But for HER2, for example -- although to us, the effect seems huge -- to the big picture of all breast cancer, it's not that much. (at best, 1/2 of 25% of all bc, right?) Endocrine treatment should be making a bit larger difference -- but why don't we SEE that -- in an improvement in mortality statistics? Again, I think we need to re-focus our resources (the billions of dollars and thousands of brilliant minds).

Debbie Laxague

[SoCalGal]

Amen Debbie!

[Ellie F]

And Amen again Nora and Debbie!!

Ellie

[norkdo]

thank you very much debbie and ellie.

ladies who had miscarriages and abortions:

If you are ER- and PR- your hormones did not give you breast cancer. Therefore your abortions and miscarriages had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR GETTING CANCER!

MORE BREAST CANCER MONEY NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO RESEARCHERS.

[tricia keegan]

In my case I was highly hormone pos for both, but agree its a crap shoot!

[Jackie07]

I firmly believe that eventually science will prove our 'genes' are the most important factor in cancer link.

Out of the 15-20 female relatives I know, my 2nd Sister-in-law and I used to be the only ones who have been diagnosed and treated for breast cancer. I grew up in the surberb; she grew up in the city. I am the youngest child of six; she the oldest of 4. I lived overseas for 20 years before the cancer diagnosis; she'd never left home except a few trips abroad. We both were diagnosed about the same age - early and mid 40's.

Now a third relative (not a blood kin, either) is having breast cancer surgery today. She's in her mid 60's and has been a sign-language expert because she can not speak (caused by fever when she was a baby?). Her two daughters, both registered nurses, are with her in the hospital right now.

She grew up in another part of the big island country. Her family has had tremendous health problems: both her parents passed away when the children were still young (my Brother-in-law had begun to cook for his whole family at age 13 and became an excellent cook besides teaching high school math - he took early retirement because of health problems.) One of her nephews is autistic...

It sounds logical that the abrupt interruption of hormones could have some effect on the ER+, PR+ breast cancer. However, research (see previous post (#10)on this thread) does not support this assumption.

ps.
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2011 May 11. [Epub ahead of print]
Misinformation on abortion.

Rowlands S.
Source

Institute of Clinical Education , Warwick Medical School, Coventry , UK.

Abstract

Objective To find the latest and most accurate information on aspects of induced abortion. Methods A literature survey was carried out in which five aspects of abortion were scrutinised: risk to life, risk of breast cancer, risk to mental health, risk to future fertility, and fetal pain.

Findings Abortion is clearly safer than childbirth. There is no evidence of an association between abortion and breast cancer. Women who have abortions are not at increased risk of mental health problems over and above women who deliver an unwanted pregnancy. There is no negative effect of abortion on a woman's subsequent fertility. It is not possible for a fetus to perceive pain before 24 weeks' gestation.

Misinformation on abortion is widespread. Literature and websites are cited to demonstrate how data have been manipulated and misquoted or just ignored. Citation of non-peer reviewed articles is also common. Mandates insisting on provision of inaccurate information in some US State laws are presented.

Attention is drawn to how women can be misled by Crisis Pregnancy Centres. Conclusion There is extensive promulgation of misinformation on abortion by those who oppose abortion. Much of this misinformation is based on distorted interpretation of the scientific literature.

[Mtngrl]

The most important risk factor for breast cancer is being a woman in an industrialized country, and the older you are, the more your risk goes up.

I think the focus on individual lifestyle choices and individual control over risk factors masks a huge political, philosophical and social issue in this country. We have chosen to tackle a large public health problem with a double whammy of "free market" fundraising campaigns and a message of "empowerment." The free market fundraising elevates breast cancer over others and has resulted in a huge "cancer industrial complex" that, sadly, has no real incentive to work itself out of a job. The "protect yourself and your family" meme (mostly by screening, according to the prevailing messages) gives people the false idea that they can "conquer" this disease (and other cancers) on their own. You can't. No one can.

We have spent billions of dollars on breast cancer in the last 40 years with some improvement in the situation, but not enough. Focusing on individual lifestyle choices takes the focus off many critically important issues, including the paucity of funding for Stage IV research and the likelihood that environmental factors are far more important than lifestyle.

Do not dare compare the smoking/lung cancer link and ANY known risk factor for breast cancer, other than being a woman. Lung cancer and cigarette smoking are unquestionably in a causal relationship. I had NONE of the known risk factors for breast cancer (other than age). Neither did many of you.

Quibbling about highly variable, poorly controlled, retrospective studies (possibly funded by people with a specific political agenda) of one tiny potential risk factor strikes me as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[norkdo]

love you amy. love what you wrote. have tears in eyes. your kindness is powerful. god bless you. your intelligence and compassion blow me away.

[Mtngrl]

I love you too, Nora. I'm not happy about the reason we "met," but I'm glad to know you.

After multiple tries I have found your blog. Awesome.

God bless you.

[NanaJoni]

Here's another thought I've had ....while I do have some risk factors (early onset of menses, didn't breastfeed, age, obesity, hrt-wow, that seems more now that I write them down) - anyway, I've read a few studies tying inflammation as a possible cause of bc. I had two tumors in the exact spot where I've had several cysts that were biopsied by needle aspiration. I've always had a feeling that the irritation/inflammation caused by those needles could cause cell mutations leading to cancer. Here is a link to a study.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0419091159.htm

[NanaJoni]

Just scrolled down the list and saw Jackie's post on a study on inflammation as a bc cause......I'd volunteer but they're using nipple aspirate and, well, I no longer have nipples so guess I'd be screened out. Sounds interesting.

[LoisAnn]

Risk factors are an interesting topic. Just had referral for a mammo following Sept. 2011 routine checkup. Had one every year for years, except last year, due to advanced age (80+).

Healthy & extremely active. Take meds to control high blood pressure, also Evista for osteoporosis prevention for years. Never took any hormones of any kind. No family history whatsoever, with many high longevity relatives (90-100+). Not a single known case!

Last surgery was in 1933 (not a typo). Same ideal weight since college graduation during WWII. Will be 89 in Jan.

Other risk factors? Have always eaten low-fat, high-fruit/veg diet. Tons of regular exercise (aerobics, walking, stairs, biking, swimming, hiking, etc). Very minimal alcohol, a drink a month. No smoking, low stress & anxiety. Children are adopted.

Had mod radical mastectomy yesterday, full axillary node dissection. Home today. Feel great! Lots of energy, walked stairs & regular routine today, lower activity than most days (skipped exercise class!). No pain whatsoever!
(they did a new type of nerve block instead of general anesthesia for the procedure). Will find out more info at post-op visit next week.
(daughter is here helping out)

Its good to pay attention to those risk factors you can control, but sometimes things just happen. That's life.

[Cheryl D]

Gunna just throw my idea out there everyone, I think its mostly women get breast cancer because we have most of the breasts