A third of the black women who get breast cancer are under 50 years old and 20-30% of the breast cancers are triple-negative (which is an aggressive and deadly cancer with a high recurrence and metastasis, including brain metastasis and when it reoccurs it’s usually fatal since it doesn’t respond to treatment):
Studies estimate that 20 to 30 percent of breast cancers in African-American women are triple-negative breast cancers. This means the cancers lack estrogen and progesterone receptors and won’t respond to drugs that work by preventing the hormones from reaching the cancer cells. Triple-negative cancers also are HER-2 negative, another hormone, and therefore don’t respond to any of the treatments known to block the cancer’s growth.”The breast cancer is more aggressive,” says Sheppard, “The tumors are harder to treat. They’re larger.”
Here’s the audio of the report from NPR:I think it’s clear that there is probably a genetic component to the triple negative cancer among black women. Those with the BRCA1 mutation (while not limited to Ashkenazi Jews, over 2% of the Ashkenazi Jewish population have the mutant gene) who get breast cancer are more likely to get triple negative breast cancer. I hope they identify the link soon but I don’t hold out much hope that it will do them much good. They’ve known about BRCA1 and 2 for 14 years and they still haven’t been able to stop those who have it from getting cancer (though, they’ve made some progress). Their only option is surgery to remove currently healthy organs to cut down their risk (double mastectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy) and with a 44% chance of getting ovarian cancer and a 87% chance of getting breast cancer, it’s worth it.
posted December 8, 2009 at 10:25 am
Gee….is Michele posting this information so that she can obliquely criticize the recent recommendations about mammograms? Mmmmm……
Sorry Michele, as the recommendations stated, all women need to talk with their doctors to decide how often to screen and 99% of all doctors are well aware of the statistics for black women. In fact the doctors may recommend screenings every 6 months in some cases.
I am worried about the countless number of young black women who do not have health insurance because they got laid-off, their husband got laid-off, or maybe their employer only gives them 35hrs a week so they don’t have to provide full-time benefits. Nothing of that in your post. I wonder why?
posted December 8, 2009 at 11:12 am
“Gee….is Michele posting this information so that she can obliquely criticize the recent recommendations about mammograms? ”
Michele has already criticized the recommendations in an earlier post. She didn’t have to criticize them since NPR did it for her
Michele posted this because she realizes the need for the recommendations to change to accommodate the reality of what black women go through. Since she knows what it’s like to have cancer (and an aggressive cancer at that), she knows what fear these women have and that they very likely have a hard, uphill battle. If the doctors were encouraged (through recommendations) to give black women earlier screening, it might lower the mortality rate. And she thinks that we all would be for that, right?
“I am worried about the countless number of young black women who do not have health insurance because they got laid-off, their husband got laid-off, or maybe their employer only gives them 35hrs a week so they don’t have to provide full-time benefits.”
Then I guess you are pretty miffed that California used the task force’s recommendation to move screening to 50 so that they wouldn’t have to pay for mammos. If these recommendations are made a part of ObamaCare, then it doesn’t matter if these women are covered by government insurance or not, they won’t be encouraged to get early screening and they won’t be paid for.
“Nothing of that in your post. I wonder why?”
Because I wanted to focus on the issue which is the high mortality rate of black women. Not the politics behind the issue. I care about the cancer issue since it’s one I live with and still dealing with the fallout. Even though I’m currently in remission that doesn’t mean I’m free of the fear that it will return (I get check ups every three months) or that I will develop another type of cancer (I have an elevated risk for 2 other cancers and currently planing surgery to minimize my risk).
posted December 9, 2009 at 7:03 am
Yes, Michele, I am concerned over California’s decision, but their decision had nothing to do with the panel’s recommendations: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_13954479
They would have ended the program if no recommendations were given.
They cite costs as the problem. The more unnecessary mammograms that are done the higher the costs for all women. The point is that women who probably don’t need it-can hold off, so that those who need them desperately-can get them.
And if the recommendations become part of “ObamaCare” – then the ENTIRE recommendation will be adopted: that women should decide with their doctors and their decision overrides everything else.
P.S. the panel’s recommendations are the same as the College of Physician’s findings 2 yrs ago.
posted December 9, 2009 at 11:51 am
You mention that ” Their only option is surgery to remove currently healthy organs to cut down their risk (double mastectomy, tubal ligation, hysterectomy)”
The surgeries needed are double mastectomy and removal of the ovaries and fallopian tubes.
Hysterectomy and tubal ligation will not do anything to prevent ovarian cancer.
posted December 9, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Remove from Congress those who support a socialised healthcare system which has been written by advocates of euthanasia (first voluntary, later mandated),
abortion (first on demand, then by order of a population control economics panel)
Euthanasia of elderly by rationing.
posted December 9, 2009 at 10:59 pm
mandated euthanasia and abortion? come back to earth, people… your imaginations have run wild.