angelina jolie double masectomy

[DC Tom]

So, then, I would imagine that if the results were such that she would choose a mastectomy, that would be an elective procedure and not covered by insurance.

 

Depends on the insurance, probably. (Not that Jolie has to worry about that...she can probably pay cash.) My wife had a breast reduction for the same reason (and probably will have a double mastectomy); insurance picked it up. As I recall, the logic wasn't that it was "elective" as much as "prophylactic," thus would save the insurer money in the long run.

 

And before someone asks: reconstruction after a mastectomy is covered, too. It's considered "prosthetic" rather than "enhancement".

[Gugny]

Depends on the insurance, probably. (Not that Jolie has to worry about that...she can probably pay cash.) My wife had a breast reduction for the same reason (and probably will have a double mastectomy); insurance picked it up. As I recall, the logic wasn't that it was "elective" as much as "prophylactic," thus would save the insurer money in the long run.

 

And before someone asks: reconstruction after a mastectomy is covered, too. It's considered "prosthetic" rather than "enhancement".

Great info and thanks. Cancer runs in my wife's family - - on both sides. Scary stuff.

[truth on hold]

 

 

There was nothing to spread; she didn't have cancer. What part of "PREEMPTIVE" didn't you understand? Did you even read the link you posted?

This little experiment of taking you off ignore just isn't working out. Your combination of ignorance and attitude really is quite tiring. Because of the seriousness of the matter I'll make an exception and spell this out further. When someone dies of breast cancer its not because it was benign and stayed isolated in the breasts. That should be obvious because the breasts can be removed and people can still live. Not true of vital organs. The pre-emptiveness of removing breasts from someone with jolie's risk profile is that it has a high chance of starting there, metasticizing and spreading to vital organs which cannot be removed without killing her.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[boyst]

i do not get how they could tell she had an 85% chance of getting it. i know her mom died and all, but still. lop off the lady lumps for that?!

[bbb]

87% - get it straight!

[eball]

This little experiment of taking you off ignore just isn't working out. Your combination of ignorance and attitude really is quite tiring. Because of the seriousness of the matter I'll make an exception and spell this out further. When someone dies of breast cancer its not because it was benign and stayed isolated in the breasts. That should be obvious because the breasts can be removed and people can still live. Not true of vital organs. The pre-emptiveness of removing breasts from someone with jolie's risk profile is that it has a high chance of starting there, metasticizing and spreading to vital organs which cannot be removed without killing her.

 

You actually put people on "ignore?" Too funny. I actually enjoy not doing that, so I can continue to read your drivel and laugh.

[Garion]

If you are interested in information on genetic testing for breast cancer:

 

m.hopkinsmedicine.org/avon_foundation_breast_center/patient_information/videos/lillie_videos/breast_cancer_genetic_testing_guidelines.html

 

[BillsFanM.D.]

It doesn't seem like this reduces her chance of ovarian cancer though? Kinda stinks that she has a 50% chance of getting that.

It doesn't reduce her risk for that cancer. Women who are BRCA positive have greatly increased risk for both breast and ovarian cancers. Some women opt to have their ovaries removed as a result. Others opt for increased surveillance though ovarian cancer can 'appear' in short windows of time and can be extremely aggressive. The converse is true, however, in that a women who removes her ovaries does reduce her risk of breast cancer. No ovaries means reduction in estrogen...which is a 'fuel' for breast cancer.

 

Also to raise awareness. It's a hell of a courageous move to come out and say "Yeah, I, as a virtual archetype of feminine sexiness, had my breasts cut off. And it doesn't make me any less a woman." Good for her, and I hope it encourages other women who need to take such a drastic step but are intimidated by it.

Very well said.

 

serious question: if a woman was to get this double masectomy - could they save the nipples and put em on the new, fake boobs? can they re-create a nipple for the new fake boob?

There are varied forms of breast reconstruction. Some of those are described as 'nipple sparing' where they are able to keep that portion of tissue for a more natural reconstruction.

 

In reading about this (here and elsewhere) and listening to the news, it seems that a lot of folks think that she 'just decided' to get her breasts removed because her mom had cancer. It's much more involved than that. The BRCA gene is a targeted screening tool used for patients with major red flags for breast and/or ovarian cancer in their family. Typically, the physician/geneticist doing the testing would have already identified the gene in a known cancer patient in the family. The 'screening' is then offered to other first degree relatives (and beyond depending on a multitude of factors). If the known cancer patient does not have the genetic defects then no further testing is typically offered. It was likely not an inherited defect.

 

Regardless....IF the patient meets those criteria, the test is typically covered and cost is removed as a burden/hindrance. Insurance companies will NOT typically pay for the test if someone just wants to be 'tested' without the appropriate level of risk in the family. Though this screening test (BRCA) gives high risk patients a valuable piece of information, it does not guarantee anything. It is all about risk assessment and allowing the patient to then make an educated decision about their screening/prevention options. Keeping in mind, however, that FAR AND AWAY, most cases of breast cancer are 'spontaneous.' Meaning, there is no family history and no known genetic predisposition. The cancer arose as a result of a 'spontaneous' gene mutation and not from a gene defect the patient was born with. Angelina, in her case, was born with a defect in the BRCA gene(s) and has a very scary family history. As a result of that, and based on the statistics of women with similar circumstances, she was very likely to develop breast cancer and has a strong possibility of ovarian as well. In my opinion, she made the correct choice. That's just my opinion, however. In that respect, the only one that matters is hers. Lastly, given the relative aggressiveness of most ovarian cancers and her known genetic findings, I'd strongly consider removing the ovaries as well. Another personal decision for sure, but her risks are substantial.

 

Lastly, 1% of all breast cancers occur in guys. For the guys here.....Pay attention....and if you have strong family history of 'female' cancers in your family then this is a consideration for you as well. BRCA genetics have implications for a few other cancers as well. Hope this is of some help.

[DC Tom]

This little experiment of taking you off ignore just isn't working out. Your combination of ignorance and attitude really is quite tiring. Because of the seriousness of the matter I'll make an exception and spell this out further. When someone dies of breast cancer its not because it was benign and stayed isolated in the breasts. That should be obvious because the breasts can be removed and people can still live. Not true of vital organs. The pre-emptiveness of removing breasts from someone with jolie's risk profile is that it has a high chance of starting there, metasticizing and spreading to vital organs which cannot be removed without killing her.

 

No ****, sherlock.

 

But that's not what you said. You said "to keep it from spreading." There was nothing to spread; Jolie didn't have cancer. She got a mastectomy to keep it from STARTING.

 

Mods, can I call him an idiot now?

[Gugny]

No ****, sherlock.

 

But that's not what you said. You said "to keep it from spreading." There was nothing to spread; Jolie didn't have cancer. She got a mastectomy to keep it from STARTING.

 

Mods, can I call him an idiot now?

I was once given some sound advice. If you phrase it in a less-direct manner, it's not any kind of offense. For instance ... instead of saying, "If you can't understand the difference between preemptive and reactive, you're in idiot." ... try ... "One would have to be an idiot to not understand the difference between preemptive and reactive."

[truth on hold]

 

 

No ****, sherlock.

 

But that's not what you said. You said "to keep it from spreading." There was nothing to spread; Jolie didn't have cancer. She got a mastectomy to keep it from STARTING.

 

Mods, can I call him an idiot now?

Anyone with the slightest clue would have understood that's what I meant in my response to bbb. That's what I mean, your lame attempts to sound smart ... maybe they have value putting people to sleep because they're so old and tiring. Certainly have no analytic value.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack

[bbb]

From the way I read her article, I think she is going to have her ovaries removed after this.

[Shamrock]

Didn't Christina Applegate do it like 1/2 dozen years ago for similar terrible familiar Ca Hx?

 

[bbb]

But, she actually had breast cancer when she did it.

[Jauronimo]

Anyone with the slightest clue would have understood that's what I meant in my response to bbb. That's what I mean, your lame attempts to sound smart ... maybe they have value putting people to sleep because they're so old and tiring. Certainly have no analytic value.

You don't get the benefit of the doubt. You have no credibility.

[DC Tom]

 

Anyone with the slightest clue would have understood that's what I meant in my response to bbb. That's what I mean, your lame attempts to sound smart ... maybe they have value putting people to sleep because they're so old and tiring. Certainly have no analytic value.

 

Anyone with the slightest clue would have typed what he meant to begin with.

 

You can't express a coherent thought, and it's my fault. Sure.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Anyone with the slightest clue would have typed what he meant to begin with.

 

You can't express a coherent thought, and it's my fault. Sure.

Actually the goal of any good scientist/engineer is to eliminate redundancy. But since the criteria of "good" eliminates you, I can see how you got so hung up on this.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Joe_the_6_pack