Hi Astrid.

Thanks for the reminder for those who may not have seen my original posted question focusing this poll on HER2's on a HER2 forum.

My thought is that perhaps the reason this is a younger population than that of general bc is because of the faster rate of cell replication. That would also mean that (as one other person here speculated) HER2 cancers probably don't take years to grow. That would mean that the traditional imaging intervals would be too late or too long for us -- and for those who have delayed imaging or less frequent imaging initially, a later and more dangerous diagnosis.

I was wondering about the relationship to hormonal levels and why there are older people who do end up HER2 long after normal menopause age. I know that the older we are, the more our cells get genetically confused and make a mess of things. But I am still not sure if that is enough of a reason for anyone who is older to end up being HER2....

I happen to have a strong family history of bc on both sides plus ovarian CA but tested entirely negative on BRCA 1 and 2, and in addition, although none of my family who were affected were ever tested for HER2, they were ALL over 50 at diagnosis. I'm sure there is significance to that, although I can't quite figure it all out.

AlaskaAngel

P.S. It is also interesting to note that the number of BRCA positives who are also HER2 positive is far lower than the general bc population, particularly BRCA 1. So most of us apparently are not BRCA positive...

I was 36. Way too young!

We also need to keep in mind that internet users tend to be younger in general. That is, women who were diagnosed with HER2 at an older age typically do not use the internet. In fact, I was reading that only 20% of women over the age of 65 use the internet while over 50% of younger women go on the internet.

Best,
Monica

to AlaskaAngel
 

AlaskaAngel, I also have a strong history of BC. MY sister was 37 and my grandmother was 43 when diagnose. Both died of BC. My sister was only 40 and my grandmother was 53. My sister was stage 1 with no lymph node involvement at initial diagnosis. She died before they were testing for HER2 status. I know she was ER+.



I also was tested for BRCA1&2 and was negative. My sister’s original status scares me. The doctors are quick to give a good prognosis if you are node negative; however a triple + diagnosis is only 15% of all breast cancer cases. I often wonder if the tamoxifen made my sister metastasize or maybe the lack of herceptin. I start tamoxfen this week as there is not another standard treatment for pre menopausal women. My doctor assures me that all the testing done where tamoxifen activates cancer cells are on animals and not human testing. As part of my work benefits, we have a research group that will research published medical journals for information and they could not find anything on tamoxifen activation.

Diagnosed 11/04 age 41

What do the stars mean, and are there any men dignosed with her2 breast cancer?

voting
 

I was diagnosed two months before my 50th birthday but I marked 50 cause that is when things started happening. My oncologist considered me young for breast cancer? lol that was 6 years ago.
Marily

bringing this forward

Diagnosed at 33
 

I was diagnosed at 33 and 34...

My mom was diagnosed at 77 (six years after moving from Taiwan to San Francisco Bay Area)...

I was diagnosed at 58

I was 55 when diagnosed in 2002. During weekly infusion a couple weeks ago, I met a woman who is her2+ (don't see very many of us) who said she felt a lump two months after a clear mammogram. Turns out she had TWO tumors that had not shown up.