Sure, there may be little difference in survival rate, but that still doesn't mean there aren't other reasons for breast removal. My mother had breast cancer and went through 30 days of radiation (which wiped her out and caused some permenant tissue damage)and 4 years of Arimidex. The side effects of the Arimidex were awful and included bone loss leading to two different hip replacements for her. When she had the 2nd hip replacement, her doctor immediately took her off of the Arimidex and said she'd had enough of it. She said if she had it to do all over again, she'd choose breast removal instead of having to go through everything she did.

I chose to do everything I could after being diagnosed with breast cancer five years ago. I had chemo, radiation and a bilateral mastectomy. I have been taking Arimidex for four years.

Every person is different and needs to make her own evaluation of her situation and her personality. I am happy with the decisions I made. They gave me a physical as well as a psychological advantage, and a strong peace of mind.

http://graciouslivingdaybyday.com/

So your 15-year survival rate is about the same -- the only difference, I guess, is whether you'll be alive in 15 years fighting a resurgence of the cancer, or alive in 15 years and cancer-free.

fsilber: That's essentially correct, but the article doesn't give specifics. I suppose any publications would...

I wonder if in the near future ,is the goverment going to get involved and try to help the women make up there mind on to have the breast removed or tell her she may not live any longer and save the people money.

I was diagnosed with Her 2+ breast cancer in October 08 in one breast. I decided on a bilateral mastectomy for my own comfort level. I am very happy with my decision and I just don't understand how a lumpectomy can be as effective in the resurgence of the cancer when there is so much less breast tissue left.

There's so much information out there to try and digest. So many studies. So many myths. When I was growing up, we never thought about BC. It was an older woman's disease. We were under the impression that it's something you start worrying about at 40. Every day younger and younger women are being diagnosed. I also naively always thought if I was diag. with BC and it was in the early stages, I'd have a mastectomy. Then no worries, no need for chemo. But I found out (actually found out from watching an episode of House a few years back) Mastectomy guarantees nothing. Even the best breast surgeon cannot remove every breast cell. I used to think that cancer could only spread thru lymph nodes. Not true, it spreads thru blood, and locally into muscle and bone.. I visit a BC discussion board, (a good friend was diag. a few years ago) and there are several women on there who opted for masectomy, had chemo "as a safety net, insurance, a guarantee" (there's no such thing with chemo/cancer) and they suffered recurrence. So what is the answer...