People make the choices they need to, so I would never judge anyone for their choice regarding this. That said, I wonder how accurate the estimates for risk are? It doesn’t make sense to me for many reasons. They say that breast size doesn’t change risk. I know that as a small-breasted woman with a significant family history of breast cancer. They try, during the mastectomy, to remove all breast tissue, but they often can’t, as sometimes breast tissue can be found in the axillary (armpit) areas and sometimes even down toward the abdomen.
I have to wonder, does this mean you don’t get things like Mammograms? After all, you no longer have breast tissue, in theory. Correct? Is it a false sense of security, that you have decreased your risk so far that you hope you are now immune? How do you get a mammogram if you have no breast tissue? I don’t understand this aspect. What would you be getting, a mammogram of your implant? That doesn’t work.
Getting rid of the breast doesn’t get rid of the estrogens that cause the cancer to begin with. What then of the ovarian cancer risk? BRCA2 also means you have an increased risk of ovarian cancer, in fact that is what killed Jolie’s mother. Should you get a total hysterectomy to remove the ovaries as well?
But what then of the need for estrogen at all?
I have too many questions that are never fully answered to say whether I think this is a good option or not. If I had known breast cancer, yes I would get a mastectomy. That goes without saying, since typically, one would remove an accessible malignant tumor anyway.