genetic odds

My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.

No formula, but your sister in law and mother in law can get tested for the
BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 gene. If they test positive you wife could get tested.
"xxffxx" <sonicironic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91a61c1c-a19b-4c79-8c4b-416d9dba8db7@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.

xxffxx wrote:
> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.

These factors will only give you a small deviation from the baseline risk.

The family history on its own only adds a little to the risk, across the
population. It is more significant for certain races. With only two
instances to consider, it is hard to draw any statistical conclusions at
all. The probability of such a configuration coming up by random chance
is quite high. You really need to go further back along the family tree
and look for a significantly high incidence, especially of close
relatives contracting the disease at a pre-menopausal age.

To make an overall assessment of the risk you also need to take into
account such risk factors as race, body mass index, HRT, alcohol, night
work, etc. etc. Even then a large proportion of occurrences of breast
cancer remain "unexplained" or "random". Opinions differ, but I've
heard say that only about 30% of cases can be 'explained' by known risk
factors. The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.


Tim Jackson

On Mar 19, 2:51*pm, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> xxffxxwrote:
> > My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
> > and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. *Is there
> > some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
> > idea of her chances of being diagnosed? *Or, just considering the mom
> > and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? *Thanks.
>
> These factors will only give you a small deviation from the baseline risk.
>
> The family history on its own only adds a little to the risk, across the
> population. *It is more significant for certain races. *With only two
> instances to consider, it is hard to draw any statistical conclusions at
> all. *The probability of such a configuration coming up by random chance
> is quite high. *You really need to go further back along the family tree
> and look for a significantly high incidence, especially of close
> relatives contracting the disease at a pre-menopausal age.
>
> To make an overall assessment of the risk you also need to take into
> account such risk factors as race, body mass index, HRT, alcohol, night
> work, etc. etc. *Even then a large proportion of occurrences of breast
> cancer remain "unexplained" or "random". *Opinions differ, but I've
> heard say that only about 30% of cases can be 'explained' by known risk
> factors. *The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>
> Tim Jackson

Thanks, Tim. Articulate and very helpful. Any more of the risk
factors you could list, with details, would be highly appreciated.

If there is a familar trait the risk of Breast Cancer is higher.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA

The risk factors you cite below are correct they are not strong variables.

The initial question was, there is a family history. I assumed the concern
was for a familiar breast cancer. Having the relatives tested would answer
that question. To be tested for the gene, one needs to be seen by a genetic
counselor who will evaluate the need to proceed for the BRCA testing. The
work with the oncologists to determine where or not the cancer follows a
pattern that is constistent with BRCA mutations. Otherwise you are correct
there is little value with the other risk factors although, there is link to
do an assessment.

http://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/





"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
> xxffxx wrote:
>> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
>> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
>> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
>> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
>> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.
>
> These factors will only give you a small deviation from the baseline risk.
>
> The family history on its own only adds a little to the risk, across the
> population. It is more significant for certain races. With only two
> instances to consider, it is hard to draw any statistical conclusions at
> all. The probability of such a configuration coming up by random chance
> is quite high. You really need to go further back along the family tree
> and look for a significantly high incidence, especially of close relatives
> contracting the disease at a pre-menopausal age.
>
> To make an overall assessment of the risk you also need to take into
> account such risk factors as race, body mass index, HRT, alcohol, night
> work, etc. etc. Even then a large proportion of occurrences of breast
> cancer remain "unexplained" or "random". Opinions differ, but I've heard
> say that only about 30% of cases can be 'explained' by known risk factors.
> The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>
>
> Tim Jackson

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>
> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.

OY!

It's my 69th birthday today!

:-)

Mary

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:39:11 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
<mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>
>OY!
>
>It's my 69th birthday today!
>
>:-)
>
Happy Birthday Mary! I was 64 last month.

--
"It's easier to get forgiveness than permission."
Rear Admiral "Amazing" Grace Hopper

<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rue4u3dnrr7k1d4bt3gr2d85ehoqevp2v9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:39:11 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
> <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>>
>>OY!
>>
>>It's my 69th birthday today!
>>
>>:-)
>>
> Happy Birthday Mary! I was 64 last month.

I reckon we're both doing well!

Mary

On Mar 19, 2:39*pm, xxffxx <soniciro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. *Is there
> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? *Or, just considering the mom
> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? *Thanks.

There are several levels of genetic testing, depending on how far you
want to go, how strongly you are urged to do it, and how much you are
willing to spend depending on your insurance. Genetic counselors make
risk charts and suggest what you should do.

Ashkenazi Jews have higher risk factors than the general population;
I've also learned that having a MALE relative with BC is another
factor.

But as somebody said above, most people with BC have nno obvious risk
factors.
DEB

Mary Fisher wrote:
> "Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>
> OY!
>
> It's my 69th birthday today!
>
> :-)
>
> Mary
>

So? It's my son's 27th too.
It was my 57th on Monday.

We redefine "old" as we age, to mean older than us, I reckon.


Tim

xxffxx wrote:
> On Mar 19, 2:51 pm, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
>> xxffxxwrote:
>>> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
>>> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
>>> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
>>> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
>>> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.
>> These factors will only give you a small deviation from the baseline risk.
>>
>> The family history on its own only adds a little to the risk, across the
>> population. It is more significant for certain races. With only two
>> instances to consider, it is hard to draw any statistical conclusions at
>> all. The probability of such a configuration coming up by random chance
>> is quite high. You really need to go further back along the family tree
>> and look for a significantly high incidence, especially of close
>> relatives contracting the disease at a pre-menopausal age.
>>
>> To make an overall assessment of the risk you also need to take into
>> account such risk factors as race, body mass index, HRT, alcohol, night
>> work, etc. etc. Even then a large proportion of occurrences of breast
>> cancer remain "unexplained" or "random". Opinions differ, but I've
>> heard say that only about 30% of cases can be 'explained' by known risk
>> factors. The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>>
>> Tim Jackson
>
> Thanks, Tim. Articulate and very helpful. Any more of the risk
> factors you could list, with details, would be highly appreciated.

The major 'medical' risk factor is estrogen exposure. Many of the other
factors come down to that - obesity increases estrogen because it is
synthesised in fat (as well as ovaries and elsewhere). Shift work etc.
because of an interaction between the sleep hormone melatonin and
estrogen levels. Childbearing and breastfeeding provide protection by
depressing estrogen. Exposure to certain pollutants which mimic
estrogen increases the risk this way.

The biggest risk factor of all is to have already have had breast
cancer. Using estrogen blocking drugs cuts the risk for these women by
half. However the side effects and increased risk of other conditions
makes these drugs inappropriate for the general population.

The recognised genetic factors, the BRCA gene mutations are I understand
mainly prevalent among those with Jewish ancestry. There are other
genetic factors being studied, but their implications are not yet well
known. Not by me anyway.

Regular alcohol consumption is known to increase the risk.

Other factors, like exposure to ionising radiation (eg x-rays and
isotopes, not microwaves or cellphones) tend to be difficult to quantify.


Tim

How do we know? We're not geneticists but a suffer support group...

María

"xxffxx" <sonicironic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91a61c1c-a19b-4c79-8c4b-416d9dba8db7@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> My wife is 58, had her first child at 36, her mother had breast cancer
> and her 56 year old sister has just been diagnosed with it. Is there
> some sort of formula I can plug information like this into to get an
> idea of her chances of being diagnosed? Or, just considering the mom
> and sister, how much does that increase my wife's odds? Thanks.

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:47e24fca$0$764$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet.ne t...
>
> <x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rue4u3dnrr7k1d4bt3gr2d85ehoqevp2v9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 09:39:11 -0000, "Mary Fisher"
>> <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>>>
>>>OY!
>>>
>>>It's my 69th birthday today!
>>>
>>>:-)
>>>
And my birthday is tomorrow, Happy Birthday Mary.

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13u575p58gjjua2@corp.supernews.com...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> "Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>>
>> OY!
>>
>> It's my 69th birthday today!
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Mary
>>
>
> So? It's my son's 27th too.
> It was my 57th on Monday.
>
> We redefine "old" as we age, to mean older than us, I reckon.

Yes, it's interesting isn't it!

A neighbour once told me how sorry she was that someone in the street had
died, at so young an age. 57.

I didn't understand then. I do now :-)

Happy birthday to EVERYONE!

Mary

Mary
>
>
> Tim

> The biggest risk factor of all is to have already have had breast cancer.
> Using estrogen blocking drugs cuts the risk for these women by half.
> However the side effects and increased risk of other conditions makes
> these drugs inappropriate for the general population.

Not true for women with estrogen negative cancers, estrogen blocking drugs
have no effect and are not recommended.
This is true for women who had cancer that was sensitive to estrogen to
begin with.

Alex

xela56 wrote:
>> The biggest risk factor of all is to have already have had breast
>> cancer. Using estrogen blocking drugs cuts the risk for these women by
>> half. However the side effects and increased risk of other conditions
>> makes these drugs inappropriate for the general population.
>
> Not true for women with estrogen negative cancers, estrogen blocking
> drugs have no effect and are not recommended.
> This is true for women who had cancer that was sensitive to estrogen to
> begin with.
>

Fair comment, there is no reason why having had an ER- cancer should
increase your risk of getting an ER+ one, so the benefit in that case
would be no more than for the general population, and the statistics
would seem to bear that out. And indeed that treatment is only
recommended for ER+ patients.

Although back when my wife was a patient in the UK they didn't actually
do the test, they gave her Tamoxifen regardless. I think it's
ineffectiveness for ER- had not yet been fully established.

However it can't be quite as simple as saying that reducing estrogen
exposure only reduces the risk of ER+ cancers. You would then expect a
much higher proportion of second primaries that happen while taking
estrogen blockers to be ER-. Of course it is hard to identify what is a
second primary, but last time I looked the statistics did not seem to
support that hypothesis. The relationship seems more complicated.


Tim

I had breast cancer in one breast and thank God it was caught very early
by a mamogram. I went ahead and had both removed to prevent the chances
of it returning. When they did my biopsy they found that I had Estrogen
and Progesterone receptors in my body. I took birth control for about
12 years and estrogen for 10. The Estrogen did not cause my cancer but
fed it thru those receptors I had in my genes. I have let everyone in
my family know that they should never take Estrogen or birth control.
So the genetics and Estrogen put my odds right up there.

I do have a question tho. Can progesterone have anything to do with
cancer?

Mora

"DK MORA" <DK_MORA_2008@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23148-47EFC72C-5@storefull-3356.bay.webtv.net...
>
> I had breast cancer in one breast and thank God it was caught very early
> by a mamogram. I went ahead and had both removed to prevent the chances
> of it returning. When they did my biopsy they found that I had Estrogen
> and Progesterone receptors in my body. I took birth control for about
> 12 years and estrogen for 10. The Estrogen did not cause my cancer but
> fed it thru those receptors I had in my genes. I have let everyone in
> my family know that they should never take Estrogen or birth control.
> So the genetics and Estrogen put my odds right up there.
>
> I do have a question tho. Can progesterone have anything to do with
> cancer?
>
> Mora
>

Hi Mora,

Did you have genetic testing? The results they give you are not related to
estrogen or progestone. They will tell you that a mutation at a certain
location is present or not.

A genetic counsler will spend hours with you explaining all this.

In a way you are lucky to have a hormone sensitive cancer it responds to
more treatment.

No I never had genetic testing. My cancer is now gone. I am just
having a lot of problems with infection and getting rebuilt.

Mora

>
> We redefine "old" as we age, to mean older than us, I reckon.

boy, not me, I call myself old, and I feel old, and I think I am old.

that having been said, there is a common saying that it takes 10 years to
get used to how old you are.

my dad died at 48.....many think that is young....it's young to die, but he
wasn't a young man. Young is 30s or 20s.
>
>
> Tim

"pumpkin" <billowroad@att.net> wrote in message
news:%AwMj.95531$D_3.10525@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>> We redefine "old" as we age, to mean older than us, I reckon.

So do I. That is, I used to ...
>
> boy, not me, I call myself old, and I feel old, and I think I am old.

So do I - but people tell me I don't look my age. I reply that I don't know
how I'm supposed to look at my age ...

Mary
>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>
>

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13u575p58gjjua2@corp.supernews.com...
> Mary Fisher wrote:
>> "Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:13u32muhibnkff8@corp.supernews.com...
>>> ... The biggest single risk factor is 'getting old'.
>>
>> OY!
>>
>> It's my 69th birthday today!
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Mary
>>
>
> So? It's my son's 27th too.
> It was my 57th on Monday.
>
> We redefine "old" as we age, to mean older than us, I reckon.

Indeed.

It was our baby son's fortieth yesterday!

I thought about you today, I took part in the Biobank survey and an
additional Heart Something test/advice. I was told that with my profile I
had a 20% risk of having a heart attack or stroke. I said Oh good, that
means that I have an 80% chance of not having one.

The nurse had never thought of it that way ... :-)

Mary
trying to reduce my flagged messages


>
>
> Tim

"Mary Fisher" <mary.fisher@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:48332e46$0$18031$4c56ba96@master.news.zetnet. net...
>
Sorry, everyone, I thought that was going to Tim personally, not the group!

Mary