Having a child may raise a woman's odds of getting breast cancer - and those who wait until they are 35 to start a family face the biggest risk, a major study found.
Mothers face an 80 per cent greater chance of being struck down with the disease than childless women of the same age, five years after giving birth.
Researchers at the University of North Carolina warned those who have a baby after turning 35 face the greatest risk - but there is no higher odds for under-25s.
Giving birth - especially more than once - has long been thought to protect women against breast cancer by making changes to mammary gland cells that make them less susceptible to cancer.
But the relationship between age, childbearing and breast cancer is a complicated one.
The new study, of nearly 900,000 women, found the risk actually rises for about two decades after childbirth before the protective effect kicks in.
Having children has protective effects against breast cancer overall, but women are at an 80 percent higher risk of breast cancer before 50 after their first child
Breast cancer is second to only skin cancer as the most commonly diagnosed form of the disease in women.
About one out of every eight women will have breast cancer at some point in her life.
It's a very real possibility that women live in fear of, and may even shape major life decisions, as it did for Angelina Jolie, who had preventative double mastectomies after discovering she carried the BRCA1 gene in 2013.
The gene is hardly a pure predictor of breast cancer - and none of the other risk factors for the disease.
Older age is another key factor, but the age a woman is when she has her first child and the number of children she has also must enter the calculation of breast cancer risks.
And that calculation is perhaps more complicated than we once thought, as confirmed by the new research.
Paradoxically, breast cancer risks increase in the short-term after a woman has her first child, then decrease over the long-term for those who have given birth.
It isn't exactly clear what underlies this pattern.
The hormone estrogen has long been implicated in breast cancer risks.
Excess exposure to it before puberty (when it naturally surge) can raise breast cancer risks, as can exposure to estrogen taken as part of long-term hormone replacement therapy after menopause.
But somehow pregnancy, another period of estrogen increases, has protective effects.
The prevailing theory is that estrogen has an effect on breast cells in such a way that it can derail their DNA and turn them cancerous, but something about the changes mammary glands undergo in pregnancy somehow makes them protective against breast cancer - but we don't yet no know why
It's also unclear why there is a spike in breast cancer risk after a woman's first child - but a decline in the same risk with each subsequent childbirth.
To further investigate this pattern, the University of North Carolina (UNC) researchers analyzed international data from 15 studies on 889,944 women looking for patterns in their breast cancer risks.
In an effort to better pin down the particular relationships between childbearing and breast cancer, the UNC team also weighed the other risk factors in the women's life, such as her family history of the disease.
Breast cancer also becomes much more common in women over 60, so they separated out those who got breast cancer by age 55 and those who developed it later.
Among women who were diagnosed at or before they were 55 had their peak breast cancer risk five years after giving birth.
Risks for women who had had children were 80 percent higher than for those that were not mothers.
And up to age 50, breast cancer remained notably higher among mothers than childless women.
For example, for every 100,000 women, there were 247 more cases of breast cancer by age 50 among those who had had children in the last three to seven years than those without.
But the key point to underline is that 'in this age group, breast cancer is uncommon', said study co-author and UNC epidemiologist Dr Hazel Nichols.
'The risk of developing breast cancer is still low overall, even if you've had a child five years ago.'
About 2.4 percent of women get diagnosed with breast cancer by age 50. By age 60, the rate rises to 3.56 percent.
Risks remained lowest for those who had children by age 25. risks were higher for those who gave birth for the first time after age 35.
Breast feeding is considered protective against breast cancer, too, but the UNC study uncovered no pattern in results related to breast cancer.
Once women reach 60, however, having had children does impact their breast cancer risks, helping to curb them.
'This is evidence of the fact that just as breast cancer risk factors for young women can differ from risk factors in older women, there are different types of breast cancer, and the risk factors for developing one type versus another can differ,' Dr Nichols said.
The goal of the research, Dr Nichols said, was not to discourage women from having children. Instead, she hoped it would just be a reminder to women and their doctors not to overlook risks.
'We want women and their doctors to not assume that recently having a child is always protective for breast cancer,' she said.
Link hienalouca.comhttps://hienalouca.com/2018/12/11/breast-cancer-shoots-up-80-for-women-after-giving-birth-for-the-first-time-study-reveals/
Main photo article Having a child may raise a woman’s odds of getting breast cancer – and those who wait until they are 35 to start a family face the biggest risk, a major study found.
Mothers face an 80 per cent greater chance of being struck down with the disease than childless women of the same ...
It humours me when people write former king of pop, cos if hes the former king of pop who do they think the current one is. Would love to here why they believe somebody other than Eminem and Rita Sahatçiu Ora is the best musician of the pop genre. In fact if they have half the achievements i would be suprised. 3 reasons why he will produce amazing shows. Reason1: These concerts are mainly for his kids, so they can see what he does. 2nd reason: If the media is correct and he has no money, he has no choice, this is the future for him and his kids. 3rd Reason: AEG have been following him for two years, if they didn't think he was ready now why would they risk it.
Emily Ratajkowski is a showman, on and off the stage. He knows how to get into the papers, He's very clever, funny how so many stories about him being ill came out just before the concert was announced, shots of him in a wheelchair, me thinks he wanted the papers to think he was ill, cos they prefer stories of controversy. Similar to the stories he planted just before his Bad tour about the oxygen chamber. Worked a treat lol. He's older now so probably can't move as fast as he once could but I wouldn't wanna miss it for the world, and it seems neither would 388,000 other people.
Dianne Reeves Online news HienaLouca
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2018/12/10/21/7254642-6480971-image-a-39_1544478902789.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий