Insensitive comments, Kylie Minogue

Public Archive
1

Just had to let off steam here. Did anyone see the comments made by Platell in
the Daily Mail today about Kylie and her Breast cancer?

I’m so happy Kylie appears to have beaten breast cancer, delighted she is back with her boyfriend and it says how radiant she looked in a itsy bitsy teeny weeny dress. then this is the bit that made me cross.
There’s a cloud on the horizon: Kylie is so desperate to do anything to have a baby, she is seeking radical new fertility surgery. Sometimes, Kylie you just have to stop and count your blessings. GULP!!!
So ladies we are blessed because we have had cancer and are alive but anything extra please dont even ask for it.
You go for it Kylie is what i say good luck to you.
I shall be writing to the Mail.
Rx

2

Haven’t seen the article BUT if Kylie’s breast cancer was ER+ then fertility treatment and having a baby could kill her.

Many younger women want children after breast cancer but the risks to their health are not fully explained or they choose not to listen.

3

My breast care nurse told me that kylies chemo was EC…

Not that makes any input into your comments, just wanted to add that!

Lynne

4

Hey Holeybones,

Could you elaborate on that a bit, please? Couldn’t find info to support it on the net, but then maybe I don’t want to find it…

Thanks a lot
J

5

Maybe Kylie might just do what the other celebs do, get to a poor country and do a Madonna!

6

OK - receptor status and childbirth.

Your tumour is tested for receptors and a high proportion of women test positive for oestrogen receptors (ER+) and or progesterone receptors (ER+). If your tumour is ER+, then they usually try to decrease the circulating oestrogen in your body, treatment often being with Tamoxifen. Tamoxifen is sometimes given to women who are ER- but still PR+

Tamoxifen does interfere with fertility but is not considered safe birth control. You are warned not to get pregnant while taking Tamoxifen or any other hormone treatment prescribed by your oncologist.

So, on the one hand Tamoxifen and other hormone treatments can help you avoid cancer recurence, but to get pregnant you need to abandon their protection. Oestrogen and Progesterone hormone levels will be further increased by any hormonal fertility treatments given and by pregnancy itself if you are successful. Extra progesterone is produced during pregnancy by the placenta.

So, for women who already have one child but would like another, think seriously about whether or not it is fair to increase the chances that an existing child will grow up without a mother.

Although we keep hearing about the wonderful 5 year survival statitics, it is a sad fact that 50% of women with early breast cancer, still die of their disease eventually. Do you want to increase your risk of being in the 50% or of bringing the date forward?

For those who have never had a child, I can see that maybe the biological urge to have a child will be stronger than concern about the risks to the mother but you need to know what the risks are. You also need to think about what happens to that child if you don’t make it. Kylie has more than enough money to provide for any child she leaves behind and seems to have a close-knit family who would look after the child. I have little faith in her boyfriend but she probably thinks she has little time to find a more suitable father for the child?

Adopting might be an option for some, but obviously, it is harder to adopt if you have a life threatening illness. Fostering might be easier.

In my view, too much effort is put into protecting the fertility of young women sometimes, just because of the psychological trauma of them having to accept infertility. While so many on injections to suspress ovulation instead of surgical removal of ovaries? If you definitely won’t be having children and are premenopausal ER+, tell them your decision and get rid of your ovaries because it is much more effective at reducing oestrogen levels.

Sorry if some of this is upsetting to those who were still considering motherhood. Maybe some of you will still be mothers. However do understand what you are doing.

7

Just doing an internet browse and the information about pregnacy after er+ cancer seems contradictory. Some doctors urging no pregnancy for at least two years, while other bits of research seem to say it makes no difference.

BUT any woman who has had an aggressive breast cancer does need to bear in mind that she may get a recurrence and die prematurely of breast cancer. Kylie Minogue has by no means ‘beaten’ breast cancer…it is far too soon to suggest this. Younger women are more likely to have aggressive breast cancers and many will get a recurrence and die.

I think for anyone considering a pregnancy after breast camcer it is really important to think about the needs of the child and what it might mean for that child if you die prematurely. This is not to suggest that women shouldn’t have children after breast cancer but I’m inclined to agree with Holeybones that protecting and promoting the fertility of younger women isn’t necessarily the key priority. It is very very hard for any child to lose their mum at an early age and I think this is something which should be seriously considered by any woman contemplating a new pregnancy after cancer.

Jane

8

Hi

I have just read all the above but wish I hadn’t, I thought I was quite well informed but obviously not. I did not realise 50% of women still die of BC. Only at start of chemo and have a 3yr old boy who I am lucky to have and wish to see him grow up and even hope to see grandchildren, now feel quite low though. I will get back to positive thinking but it has just shocked me the stats were so high as said thought I was well infomed, let’s just hope new/better treatments come along soon for us all. One of the reasons I agreed to go onto a trial. By the way does anyone know what Kylie’s dx was as not been able to find on the net.

Wishes to you all

JulieL
xx

9

Just remember there is the other 50% - you may be one of those but only you can makethe choices with ALL the information available… Good luck to you all… I am so lucky with husband two children and grandchildren I do not have to make those choices I shall be thinking of you all …

10

I thought it was about 27% actually. I read Kylie was very early stage cancer. I also read she had her eggs harvested. I know for a fact she had Herceptin because it fuelled the argument that even primary BC should get it. That is not to say she was not ER positive.

Not sure I would want Olivier back though, if my husband dumped me at the present point when I was my at most unattractive, I would be worried that he would dump me if I didn’t lose my baby fay quick enough

The sound of 50 % sounds rather scarey

11

I really think that quoting statistics, without the link to were you found them is a little harsh to some of the younger women on here who are eventually going to want children, i have heard of quite a lot of women who have successfully gone onto motherhood, with very few problems, i shall certainly be asking my oncologist about this 50% business, as its totally contradicted anything he said to me,

Alison

12

just pulled this off the “cancer research” site
Survival rates for breast cancer have been improving for more than 20 years. The estimated relative five-year survival rate for women diagnosed in England and Wales in 2001-2003 was 80%, compared with only 52% for women diagnosed in 1971-1975 (Figure 3.1)1,2 14 The estimated relative twenty year survival rate for women with breast cancer has gone from 44% in the early 1990s to 64% for the most recent period.

13

Hi Alison, the problem with the five year stats is that they include women with mets so it’s quite misleading.

14

thanks alison! I had a look at that data too. And the info about pregnancy after breast cancer is contradictory, as was said before.

For me, having to accept both the diagnosis of cancer and a sentence of infertility at the same time, is really difficult. I think that preserving fertility for some women might mean more willingness and readiness to fight the disease, whether or not they end up having children. I might not - but the idea that I could makes a difference in the here and now.

Love to all

15

Bubica, i think this disease is so very individual to each woman who gets it, and at the end of the day, we can only go with what treatment we are offered and hope that it does the job, i think if you want children, then if you can safely have them, then go for it, ok, i suppose some women don’t always get to see their children grow up, but i think that most women who have had bc make an informed decision on whether to try for children or not, i also think that that choice should never be taken away from a woman, you could just as easily get run over by a bus.,

Alison xxxxxxx

16

i personally think most data can be a bit misleading as well, but if your going to show data, then i think people need to back it up with a link or the site they got it off, its a lot more misleading when people can’t find these statistics, but a lot more worrying if these statistics scare vulnerable people.

Alisonxxx

17

Alison,

You are quoting 5 year and 20 year survival statistics. They are the statistics that you will be alive (though not necessarily well and disease-free) 5 / 20 years after diagnosis. I’m part of those improving 5 year survival statistics, but have mets that will eventually kill me.

The 50% lifetime risk is actually quoted by Breast Cancer Care somewhere on this website and was also quoted by NICE. Sorry I don’t know where to find a link right now. Perhaps someone from BCC can help tomorrow? Your 64% statistic for 20 years does seem compatible with 50% lifetime risk, doesn’t it?

There is a tendency among medical professionals to believe that women should be protected from any harsh facts. They don’t lie exactly, but tell a lot of half truths. If you want straight facts, make sure you let them know you can handle it. Ask very direct questions. Watch out for evasive answers.

Remember it is not so many decades ago, when it was usual for a cancer patient with no treatment options, not to be told they had cancer.

JulieL,

Don’t expect to find anything much published about Kylie’s prognosis that can be relied upon. She wants to get her career back on track and to a large extent, that may mean being economical with the truth about her health. Those cancelled appearances when she wasn’t well, cost promoters money. She wants people to trust that it won’t happen again.She won’t have had some kind of less serious breast cancer from which she can be said to be “all clear” when nobody else gets that assurance. Recovery isn’t just about getting your hair back and looking good in a skimpy dress. I’m fed up of people who won’t believe I’m terminally ill because I look OK.

Holey

18

At the end of the day Holey, i live each day at a time, i only plan so far forward, but i try to live my life fully, i really don’t care about statistics, cos at the end of the day we are all very individual in our dx and prognosis, i was just making the point that people should back up any statistics they put on here, regardless of where they come from.

Alison

19

A BC friend pointed out today that they have made more progress in the last year than in the last 10 years. This will make a differance ( I hope) to the next lot of statistics. I can see that would make sense because in the last 11 months, BC ladies have been getting Herceptin & Taxotere for primary BC as they feel this will deter recurrences. I am clinging to this hope, as my BC is very aggressive.

My consultant surgeon said that as I am triple neg, and I think this is true of all hormone neg, that if it doesn’t recur in 5 years, then I will be deemed as cured. I am still not as low as 50/50 though

Jules

20

Well lets just hope that treatments continue to get better, i certainly would like to remain around for many years to come.

Alisonxx