.
Sophie I agree with much of what you say, but the living longer comment shouldn’t be a factor - all these statistics should be age adjusted to account for an ageing population.
Maggy - I also think environmental pollutants are a huge issue, but I think they don’t get mentioned because it is incredibly difficult to produce any meaningful statistics.
.
xwelcomex there is quite a lot of data on risk factors for different types of breast cancer, and for different population groups (by age, menopausal status, race etc). These statistics today are overall totals that will include everything.
Finty - I hope that these statistics have taken into account an increasingly ageing population… but judging by the reports on BBC news tonight, I rather doubt that what I have listened to has much scientific basis at all… Now, that’s not me saying I don’t believe any research - just that tonight’s offering was appalling… littered with ‘ifs’ ‘mights’ ‘mays’ and ‘maybes’ and nothing concrete - though that didn’t stop them finishing with a group shot of women at a Maggie’s centre (who may or may not have had breast cancer) and commenting on how these women at least, know what problems their lifestyle choices have caused…
and therein lies my outrage 
I also think the points about cause of death contributing to increased statistics is hugely valid - what was put down as liver cancer is now more correctly termed secondary breast cancer affecting the liver.
And yes, I think we all should be more responsible for own health and well being… but please give us all a fair and balanced viewpoint, and do not dress up supposition as fact, and if the causes are not known… don’t guess. Time was, we were supposed to be able to depend on the BEEB for a fair and balanced viewpoint… how risible is that, now?
Sophie xx
I would like to make a suggestion… Wearing bracers causes Prostate cancer. My OH is dx with this and has worn bracers for years. He should have known better …silly man! Should we really give the Beeb this much credit!
XXX Cory
Sophie I think there is a big difference between the statisticians that collate information who are highly skilled, and how journalists unused to handling statistics report the information. I would be astonished if these figures are not age-adjusted - it is the most standard procedure for any report of this type. Just as when UK statistics are compared with third world stats, they are similarly age -adjusted to as far as possible compare like with like. The problem generally lies in the interpretation, which can be quite astonishingly bad.
.
Let me suggest to everyone that you go to the Cancer Research UK website and read what they have there. It’s very interesting, the survival statistics ARE IMPROVING, HURRAY! and they show how the statistics were derived. They include many of the factors, such as the older types of HRT, which we have been discussing, and there are charts.
Let’s by all means use the actual figures to combat sloppy journalism.
Cheryl
Had to post a comment on this after watching the ‘news’ on the BBC at teatime. I only caught the last part of the report but I was gobsmacked at the way breast cancer Was portrayed as the suffererers fault- down to their lifestyle choices. What a joke- only fat, heavy drinkers get breast cancer then? What about all the patients who don’t fit the unhealthy stereotype? What about the really unhealthy alcoholics/ drug addicts and the like who live a cancer free life well into old age? I’m sorry but noone deserves a bc diagnosis- whether or not you like a few wines + struggle to keep ur bmi low.
As a tnbc sufferer, I have to say it pisses me off how bc is always discussed in relation to hormones- my bc is not hormone fed so all the oestrogen ‘links’ are irrelevant. I wish cruk wud spend more of the cash they receive on finding treatments rather than doing research telling us about risks that we all know about. Truth is they don’t know what causes bc- especially tnbc it’s a totally grey area so sweeping generalsations about causes/ risk fctors are nonsensical.
I was 32 when diagnosed, very occasional drinker), bit overweight (baby weight hadn’t shifted as my son was only 8 months old), non smoker etc etc. I refuse to take the blame for this bc nightmare. I believe stress is a much more important factor- it’s been proven to suppress the immune system (+ is obviusly linked with unhealthy life style choices too). Sadly real life is stressful especially for those of us trying to be perfect at everything- successful career woman, lovely tidy home, great wife + mother etc etc.
If I was one of those women shown in the maggies centre (or a member of their family), whilst the reporter suggested their lifestyle choices were responsible for their bc, I would be very upset…
Tina x
Well said Tina! I am too fed up with being sterotyped into this obese, heavy drinking lifestyle.
I have always tried to stay slim, eat healthily, drink in moderation. I breast fed both my girls and didnt have late pregnancies yet BC got me.
Its a lottery and I wish that the press would portray this more.
Best wishes to you all Lynn xxx
I have read the cruk report and thought it was quite good. Its the journalistic spin that frustrates me. Itv brought out the old chestnut of the lady they were interviewing having had “sucessful” treatment for bc three years earlier. Then blamed the increase in bc on lifestyle choices made by women, which is too broad brush and really slants the cruk research, and finally rounded off with the comment that a dx of bc is no longer a personal catastrophe like it was ten years ago. Am not impressed.
.
Honestly so do I.
Am off to pour myself a pint of wine. May as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb (or whatever the sayig is ).
I just wonder if those people filmed at the maggies centre realised that commentary was going to say that ?? Implying the only reason they are there is because of ‘bad lifestyle choices’…
Feel like rioting, Egyptian style…on a camel if I could get my hands on one.
julie
.
Oh and the lard sandwiches Belinda mentioned before !!!
Can’t watch it, need to sleep tonight and their coverage just winds me up. But i have read the bbc news website tonight and their article is much more balanced, for example they attempt to explain the risk factors:-
"These are indicators only and how they interact is difficult to predict. Women can do all the rights things and still get breast cancer. Likewise, women can do all the wrong things and never get the disease.
Family history: A woman with a mother, sister or daughter with breast cancer has around double the risk of getting it herself than a woman with no family history.
Obesity: Being overweight or obese is thought to increases the risk of postmenopausal breast cancer by up to 30%, because excess body fat raises levels of hormones such as oestrogen and insulin - common features of cancers.
Age: the older the woman, the higher her risk. Women aged 50-69 are most at risk, particularly those who have a late menopause.
Childbirth: The younger a woman has children, the lower her risk. Having children at all cuts the risk, as does breastfeeding.
Lifestyle: regular physical exercise and a healthy diet helps reduce the risk by cutting dangerous fatty body tissues. Smoking is not advised.
HRT: women using hormone replacement therapy have a 66% increased risk of breast cancer but the risk is temporary, returning to that of a never-user within five years of stopping.
Oral contraceptives: they increase risk by around a quarter but since users are generally younger women, their risk is relatively low.
Alcohol: drinking as little as one alcoholic drink per day increases breast cancer risk by around 12%
Source: Cancer Research UK
Cancer Research UK - Breast cancer information
BBC Health - Breast cancer"
It’s all true. I brought it on myself by daring to live to 64. I was stupid enough to let myself be born to a mother who was diagnosed with breast cancer at 73 and a father who died of prostrate cancer. I should never have had those children in my thirties. Why did I become a teacher and let myself be subjected to all that stress? There must have been a way of preventing myself from being one of life’s worrier types. And the biggie for me was being silly enough to respond to that breast screening. I could have been happily wandering around cancer free like all the older women who weren’t screened 30 years ago if I had just stuck my head in the sand. My bad!
But wait! I have never been on the pill or had hormone replacement therapy. I hardly touched alcohol till middle age. I fed my first child till he was 9 months old. While never having qualified for the Olympics I have taken part in many sports for leisure and walked a fair bit. I have never been sylph like but neither would anyone have described me as obese. I indulge a wee bit now and then but by and large I eat a well balanced diet.
It’s all bollocks! There are extremes here and there, perhaps, that will affect onset of BC but most of us just muddle through life hoping we will not be one of the unlucky ones who get it. As others have said let’s just rejoice in the fact that the survival rate is miles better than it was when I was born and is increasing all the time.
Rose
My OH has a graduate science background and also has has a friend in London with a PhD who lectures young doctors who want to specialise in cancer on the theory of chemotherapy, so he was able to speak to him generally about cancer studies and chemo. At the time this was a great help to us.
Whenever these studies are published that say you increase your chances of cancer by X amount if you do this, or by Y amount if you do that, my OH always says “X percent of what?” - in a lot of cases the reports never tell you the size of the representative study or group of individuals they used, whether it was across different countries etc.
For instance, not long after I found out I was Her2 positive there was a study publicised on women who were not given Herceptin treatment, I think something like 60 or 70 of them had died over a 2 year period. The Professor I know told me not to pay attention to that study as it (a) it was out of date (b) it only took a sample of 100 women and (c) out of the 100, a huge proportion had such extremely advanced cancers they were expected to die long before the study finished.
At the time this study was being quoted widely by one of the women who fought to get Herceptin for early stage Her2 positive BC and a lot of women in the same boat were scared by all the publicity it was getting. I can’t remember her name, but she was writing a book about her experience - this Professor said to me “don’t forget there is a book to publicise, this research will have been jumped on by the publishers as a hook for readers”. Sounds a bit cynical I know, but what I’m trying to get a cross is that not all studies are what they seem in the press reports. You often have to dig a lot deeper to find out any true facts. I worked as a research assistant to 2 Economists in the City for a few years and even learned this through some of the stats I had to monitor every day as part of my job.
Very interested by this:
“Family history: A woman with a mother, sister or daughter with breast cancer has around double the risk of getting it herself than a woman with no family history.”
The reason is that when I was dx, I specifically asked whether it meant my 3 sisters (all under normal screening age) should be checked and the specialist at the hospital said no. He said very clearly that given there was no other family history, their chance of getting BC was the same as women in the population as a whole. I’m sure CRUK is correct but this specialist should not have answered my question in that way.
I was also interested that being overweight pre-menopause reduced risk by 20% - so I can cross that off my guilt list!
I didn’t watch any news coverage of the stats yesterday as it would have raised my stress levels lol. To take a similar example, would the news reporters when covering a story of some child being killed / badly injured on a main road say it the parents’ lifestyle choice to live on a busy road?