[AlaskaAngel]

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...