E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDr. Nancy Snyderman talks with TODAY's Ann Curry about whether there's a connection between in vitro fertilization and breast cancer.
Giuliana Rancic’s recent diagnosis of breast cancer at age 36 has generated a lot of emotional support for the E! host -- and some worries about the connection between fertility treatments and the disease.
During an interview with TODAY’s Ann Curry Monday about her efforts to have a baby, Rancic revealed that her cancer was discovered through a mammogram ordered up by her fertility specialist. Rancic, who has no family history of breast cancer, said she was dragged “kicking and screaming” to the breast screening after the specialist insisted on the mammogram before he would start a third cycle of in vitro fertilization, or IVF.
“He said, 'I don't care if you're 26 or 36, but I will not get you pregnant if possibly there's a small risk that you have cancer because the hormones will accelerate the cancer,'" Rancic told Curry Monday.
That advice may have helped save Rancic’s life, but it raised worries among some women. Could Rancic's breast cancer be connected in any way to the fertility treatment she had undergone?
"No," said TODAY's Dr. Nancy Snyderman in a follow-up on the show Wednesday. The hormones used in both in vitro fertilization and birth control pills have been studied and "there's no known cause and effect," she told Curry. "What we do know is that women who are older usually ask for IVF because they're having a harder time getting pregnant -- and women who are older have a higher chance of getting breast cancer, so there is an age relation, but not a hormonal relation."
On Tuesday Rancic underwent a lumpectomy in both breasts and is now recovering. Rancic was fortunate her doctor insisted on the screening. Mammograms are not a standard part of fertility treatment in patients her age, said Dr. Mark Perloe, medical director at Georgia Reproductive Specialists.
“We certainly want people to have a full health evaluation before beginning fertility treatments,” Perloe added. “But we wouldn’t recommend a mammogram unless there was a family history of breast cancer or a genetic risk.”
E!'s celebrity news personality Giuliana Rancic tells TODAY's Ann Curry that she has breast cancer, a new struggle in her journey to have a baby.
Breast cancer is unusual in women under 40 -- only 5 percent of all cases -- although the tumors can be faster-growing and harder to treat.
While many supporters on The Clicker Facebook page praised the benefits of mammograms, several commenters feared that "bad estrogen" or other hormones may have been connected to Rancic's diagnosis.
Hormones used in IVF cycles include estrogen, progesterone, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone.
Despite the hormone paranoia, it's even possible that IVF might be protective.
“The evidence is that IVF has no effect or lowers incidence, said Adrian V. Lee, a professor of pharmacology and chemical biology and director of the Women’s Cancer Research Center at the University of Pittsburgh’s Magee-Womens Research Institute. “The largest study in Sweden -- of 25,000 women who had IVF compared to 1.4 million without -- showed a 25 percent reduction in breast cancer and a 40 percent reduction in cervical cancer in those who had IVF.”
Theoretically, Perloe said, if a woman had breast cancer, higher levels of estrogen and progesterone could stimulate the tumor to grow. But that would be true even if the woman got pregnant on her own because hormone levels rise as a pregnancy progresses.
"My concern is that this is going to cause a lot of people to be afraid," Perloe said. "My advice to anyone who has concerns is to speak to their doctor and learn to do breast self-exams -- and to check to see if anyone in their family had cancer before thet age of 40."
As for routine mammograms in infertile women aged 26 to 36, Perloe said, that would be a mistake. That's because mammograms come with some radiation exposure.
"So you have to balance the risk of exposure to radiation from testing against the likelihood that there might be something there," Perloe said.
When women should begin mammogram screening is controversial. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Forces recommends breast cancer testing start at age 50, although the American Cancer Society advises yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 for women with an average risk.
So, women with infertility problems can relax, about their breast cancer risk at least. IVF treatments may not guarantee a baby, but they won't worsen your odds of developing cancer, doctors say.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
Do keep in mind, that at 36 Giuliana is considered to be old for having children. She may feel young, she may dress and act young, but her ovaries are very close to the end of their lifespan. If women think that they might want children, they should be having them in their 20s. Many women may think that this is unfair, but you might as well argue that it is unfair that gravity makes things fall.
If you think that 36 is young, let's have Giuliana go six months without makeup, beauty treatments, or hair coloring. Make-up, hair dye, plastic surgery, and spandex foundation garments do not make a person young. Society may think that it is best to have children from 35 to 40, but nature thinks that it is best to have children from 15 to 29. One day medicine may be able to greatly extend reproductive years, but until then, nature wins over what society wants.
I'm 36, people routinely comment that I look almost exactly the same as I looked at 17 (except for some gray hair that I've had since I was 19), and I just got pregnant in two months. The exactly same amount of time to took me to get pregnant when I was 33.
This is a horrible generalization meant to make older mothers feel bad about themselves if they're having trouble with conception. This lady is a matter of months past the point where they even consider your age a small risk.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Do keep in mind, that at 36 Giuliana is considered to be old for having children.
My two nephews are 3 and 1, my sister is 39 now, didn't have any problems with either of them (as a matter of fact they were both models for H&M), so keep your generalizations to yourself.
Tanus Set, you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm 39 and when I got pregnant with my 3 year old son, I literally got pregnant the very first month,..in fact, the very first day my husband & I tried to get pregnant. According to what you said in your post, I was too old for that to happen. I think it's safe to say that you are clueless and your generalizations make you look like an idiot.
I am 5 months pregnant at 41. I got pregnant naturally after trying for years so I guess my body wasn't too old to get pregnant. While it may be easier for a 15-29 year old to get pregnant, it certainly may not be to the best interest of that woman. Women go to college and should be expected to live a life before wanting to have children. Keep your stupid opinions to yourself and I hope you are very happy when your 15 year old gets pregnant.
Estrogen and cancer go hand in hand. Every thing I read implicates estrogen or estrogen mimicking chemicals (BPA anyone?) to various types of cancer. You play with fire and you might get burnt.
I'm 38. Exactly what gives you the right to say I'm too old to have a baby??? It's MY life, it's MY child, NOT YOURS. And as for WHY I didn't have children until now? That's none of your GD business and I don't have to justify my choices to someone who is so willing to pass judgement without knowing anything about me or what I went through to get here.
Not to mention the fact that she clearly doesn't eat . . . which means she maintains an unhealthy weight . . . which is not conducive to supporting a pregnancy in the first place.
You had to know that statement would strike a nerve, Tanus. ;) Today's career woman does not have the time or desire to hear that all pregnancies over 35 are considered high-risk or that the risk of Down Syndrome jumps to 1 in 400 (from 1 in 1,250 at age 25). They're too busy pretending they'll be better parents when they're older to discuss the fact that only 20% of American women have their first child after 35.
As for Giuliana, I can't help but wonder, "Sweetie, have you tried EATING?! It can do wonders for your health."
Tanus, i am 42, don't have kids, but I look younger, in my 20's. I think Guilana looks old due to her makeup and her previous fast life, but that does not make her old to have kids. In fact I would trust her over these stupid young women who keep getting in trouble with their kids missing, killed, etc. Plus you don't have to have kids if you don't want to. It's not a requirement for women today.
The folks commenting above are just telling their own stories. The FACTS support TANUS; as you near forty you chances of conceiving are slim. Of course some do, but the CHANCES are slim.
I agree, I think in about 25 years we will look back and see poor nutrition as the cause for many ills; I suspect Rancic is a "Hollywood" victim for thinness and has poor nutrition - the root cause for her poor health at such a young age.
The study published by the University of St. Andrews and Edinburgh University in Scotland found that women have lost 90 percent of their eggs by the time they are 30 years old, and only have about 3 percent remaining by the time they are 40.
Just look it up -
How dare any of you who judge...... I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer, not just one, but 2 types of tumors, only 3 weeks after I had spent 2 months taking care of my father dying from non hodgekins lymphoma. I am an only child, I was alone ,by myself, during this time. My husband arrived just in time for his funeral. I drove cross country with my totally selfabsorbed mother thru snow and ice storms A horrible time to say the least. I moved my Mom into my home to now care for her When I told my mother that I had cancer, her response was, "Who will take care of me". NOT comforting. This was 12 years ago. Obviously I lived and thank God am doing well. I opted for a radical mastectomy, I also chose alternative therapy instead of radiation and chemo. I had reconstructive surgery at the same time as the mastectomy. My scars are my badge of honor. My reconstructed boob looks pretty good still. My late husband, loved me and my new boob. How dare any of you to criticize Giuliana for IVF, her weight or any other petty reason you may have. When a woman receives a diagnosis such as we both received , the air is sucked from your lungs, your vision goes gray and all you can think of is (I am going to die). Well Giuliana, my darling, I am alive to say God bless you, you can survive this, you can have a baby in other ways. I wish we could talk because there is more hope and help than you can possibly imagine. Hold your husbands hand and your love , and Gods' grace will get you thru.
The original post might have been better phrased, but it was essentially true. Women who both give birth and breastfeed their children prior to age 28 experience marked protection against breast cancer. Sadly, women who give birth and breastfeed after age 28 don't receive this same benefit. Socially, educationally, and career-wise, it is nice that modern women are able to choose to become mothers later in life. Unfortunately, and definitely not politically correctly, science is now discovering that physiologically, women are better off if they have babies and if they have them younger.
@Pollexter
Infertility isn't problem that strikes only women. By YOUR logic, shouldn't we also be condemning MEN who choose to further their careers in their 20s and forgo FATHERHOOD until they are in their 30s? After all, recent research has indicated that older FATHERS (who provide half of a baby's DNA makeup) play a factor in children developing autism. Why not chastise men who choose to procreate over age 35 while you're busy blaming people?
Your attitude is ignorant, ageist and sexist. Babies with Down Syndrome are born to women of ALL ages, not just to women over 35. Age alone does not mean your pregnancy is automatically high risk - ANY woman of childbearing age can experience complications or have pre-existing health conditions that put her in the high risk category. And your comment about "career women" is just plain offensive.
Thank you Giuliana! I got your message, I will make an appointment to see my doctor and have a check up. I hope everything turns out well for you and Bill. It was very touching to me to see the worry in Bill's face while you spoke. I am a mother of two teenage boys and I know there is no other love like the love I have for my boys. I hope after your cancer treatment you will be blessed with a baby. If it is gods will you will have a baby and I for one will so happy for you and Bill. I see you two as being excellent parents. God bless you and you will be in my thoughts.
@Nono
There are certainly men who become infertile with age; however, women are GUARANTEED to become infertile with age. Telling a woman that she is going to have menopause someday is not sexist.
There may be some evidence which suggests that a father's age has an effect on his children, but you can find a boatload of evidence on the effect of a mother's age on them. Does this surprise you? A woman's age is related to her health which is related to her baby's health. Men don't really matter, just because we squirt half of our DNA into the mix doesn't mean that we contribute half of the final product. Don't believe me? I drank the entire time my wife was pregnant and my son turned out fine. Shouldn't be have fetal alcohol syndrome?
My mother-in-law had her youngest child at 42 and my grandma had her youngest child at 40. I know two women who each had a surprise pregnancy at 45. All 4 of these moms conceived naturally without any "high tech" help and had uncomplicated pregnancies and deliveries.
I wish celebrities sharing their breast cancer with the world would do the responsible thing and tell the whole story and say what stage their breast cancer is in. The fact is, a good percentage is non-invasive stage 0 and is over-treated with radiation, and chemo therapy in pill form. People with stage zero should not be treated the same as higher stages, and I fear not disclosing the stage of their breast cancer and any other risk factors, does more harm then good. Unfortunately, radiologists and SOME oncologists encourage over-treatment, and most women blindly follow their advice without doing independent research.
We will be praying for you Giuliana!
I was diagnosed at 30 with breast cancer with no family history! After a mastectomy, reconstructive surgery, chemo, and radiation I had a beautiful baby boy at the age of 34! He is now 2 1/2 and perfect (well for a 2 year old that is)...... God does work miracles! We are proof of that - we never know "why" things happen, only to know we must continue to glorify Him in all that we do.
I am sixty-six and was just diagnosed with breast cancer. Your post makes me feel optimistic about the treatments, I will being facing in a few weeks. I had both breasts removed and I am awaiting my surgeons release, so I can start chemo therapy. I am so frightened. I was an oncology nurse at a hospital. The patients I treated were so affected by the treatments, they required hospitalization. Now their are so many new medications that help with side effects or so I am told. I have known since July 5TH about the cancer and had surgery August 18TH. Now, it has been a waiting game and I am petrified with fear. I have seen too much and my mind is not letting up on my nerves. Thank you Lisa. You give me hope. I just want this behind me.
I wish nothing but the best for you and your son. I have a grandson the same age.Joey is so precious .
Please stay stromg. I was diagnosed with HER2 positive breast cancer 2 years ago and had a bilateral mastectomy Oct 15, 2009. Today I write this holding my 3 month old daughter on my lap. Be thankful you found this cancer early. You and your family are in my thoughts.
Hooray for you! I felt so horrible for her when I read this story. I'm exactly her age and 4 months pregnant with my second child. What a letdown it must be to expect the outcome to be great joy only to be met with such horrific news.
I have a great concern for birth control users and cancer. Also for women who take hormone therapy to prevent hot flashes and menopausal symptoms.
First my concerns with birth control. Women use the "pill" to prevent pregnancy when they are at child baring age and then when they want to have children in the thirties and forties, they are given huge doses of hormones. I wonder if preventing pregnancy early in life is healthy? Why are so many babies born in the United States, premature or diagnoses with birth defects. It seem to me, "God" made women fertile at a young age for a reason.
Please do not take offense by my statements, it is a concern but I never took birth control, had my first baby at twenty-five because I did not have sex, until I was married. My parents would have killed me and that fear in itself, kept me from sex.
Again this is not meant as a morality subject, just concern that women should have children earlier even though they have not achieved their career goals.
For the record, infertility problems aren't limited to women who are over 35 (infertility can strike any woman of childbearing age, even after they've had one or more successful pregnancies), and what's more, infertility problems aren't even limited to women - men can also be infertile!! Should MEN hold-off on careers in favor of becoming fathers in their 20s???
Before you pass judgement on people who become first-time parents over age 35, you would do well to educate yourself on what infertility is and who it affects, otherwise your comments just sound ignorant, insensitive and sexist.
My statement/post was not meant to anger you, I was voicing concern regarding birth control pills and mother nature. Why do you think girls start their periods at in their early teens or some even earlier? It's nature. I am not saying children should have children and I am certainly not "sexist." I just wonder if taking contraceptives for a long period of time and at an early age, interferes with reproduction. The post was meant for discussion, not to anger.
Babies are being born with more birth defects than ever before, it seems. Is this due to better methods of diagnosis or possibly postponing childbirth? As I said, I was twenty-five when I had my first child. My career as a nurse was established and in those days, girls got married right out of high school. Most of my friends were moms before they were twenty. My comment was not a moral judgement, just concern that contraceptives, may have something to do with difficulty getting pregnant and birth defects.
In the spirit of discussion, what do you think about those of us who need to take birth control at a young age for hormonal reasons? I'm a twentysomething who's been on the Pill since my teens for a hormonal imbalance that caused me to have exceptionally heavy and painful periods. Does this mean I will or may have problems having kids later on? I'm not sure if I want kids, but it's still something I'm curious about.
I wish her well, successful treatment and then a healthy child.
I too wish her well and then healthy children I so enjoy watching Guilianna and Bill!
Valeria Goff: Spam spam spam spam...............................................
Tanus hit the nail on the head! Most women would look their age if they stopped the hair coloring, botox, ect... kind of a scary thought. I am all for looking good for ones age and all but some women can't help at what age they fall and love, get married and have kids. Hopefully it is a bit younger but girls are waiting longer and longer and maybe trying to "have it all" really does not work.
Tanus and tinlou....you need to keep your ignorant comments and opinions to yourselves. Women who wait till they are more settled and mature make better mothers as they have the time, resources, and experience to put into raising a child. With the advances in medicine and women taking better care of themselves there is no good reason to rush to have children. Tinlou...what a woman looks like has NO bearing on her childbearing or childrearing abilities.....shame on you.
Tanus is not trying to be mean. If you want to wait till you are forty - GO AHEAD! Oprah did a great show on this a few years ago and the audience was full of crying women in their late 30's who were complaining THEIR DOCTORS DIDN'T TELL THEM THAT THEIR CHANCES OF CONCEIVING WERE ALMOST ZIP AT THAT AGE!
For some reason people commenting here think having children after the age of 35 is something modern. My father's mother did not marry until she was thirty. This was in 1914. She had her first child at 39 and her last at 43. My maternal grandmother had two children early in life and my mother at 40. Before birth control became the norm a lot of people had children throughout their childbearing years. Some of us remember when there were quite a number of families with 8, 10 and 12 kids.
I wish Guilia nothing but the best.
Seriously! My grandmother was another one who married in her 30's (that was fairly typically for Irish-Americans in the early part of the 20th century). Her 4 kids were born when she was 35 through 40.
My mother was 43 when she had me. Her grandmother had children up until her mid-40s (she had 12 children), and everyone turned out fine.
Fertility problems happen at all ages, I used meds to get pregnant at 22, 24, and again at 33,
I am sorry, but with all the hormones and stuff she was getting injected with, I think that it would be naive to think that her breast cancer has nothing to do with that. Scary stuff. She said that she doesn't have the gene so in my HUMBLE opinion, all signs point to all the hormones that she was given. Be careful people.
Yes, the signs all point to that...if you completely ignore all medical studies and scientific evidence against that fact.
To those saying that women should have children in their 20s instead of 30s - many parents cannot afford to have children in their 20s. Besides being in a monogamous, permanent relationship with one person, the most important consideration in determining to have children should be whether you and your partner can afford those children. My tax dollars should not be going to those who decide that they want to have kids while they are young even though they can't afford those kids.
Go ahead and have the baby when you are 60! Just don't ask me or the school system to pay for damaged genes or Down Syndrome. And no, they are very good kids but not MY problem if you choose to have them. I choose not to pay your bills!
Actually, nature thinks it's best for girls to start having children as soon as they're able to physically, which for many would be 12, 13 years old. And end by about 22-23, cause that's when we're officially getting old, well, right after puberty - cells lose function, your body stops producing as many enzymes, proteins, etc. So if you're looking at just biological aspects, we should be having kids as teenagers.
In our society today things are very different. I also agree that Guiliana is not old at 36 to get pregnant, very many women have children in that 35-40 bracket. I would propose that she'd probably always have a hard time with it, just looking at her build, she's very thin, her hips are narrow, she's flat chested - not to say that you can't get pregnant if you're build that way, but again, biologically speaking, she's not ideal for it. I think nature is smarter than we are, perhaps it's just not her destiny to have biological children.
In a mean time, I hope she takes care of herself, and fully recovers from this latest challenge. I've watched some episodes of her show, and she seems like a sweet, cheerful, kind person, I'm gonna say a prayer for her tonight. Stay strong Big G!
Agree, Monica.
It is sad to see anyone get cancer and I wish her a speedy recovery. I have a question that no one seemed to have brought up. Could her breast implants have contributed to her cancer at this young age?
"...but they won't worsen your odds of developing cancer, experts say." Say the experts that are experts at POISONING all of us. We have all these problems because we let them put chemicals in our food, water, "medicines", even over the counter pills that are supposed to be "good" for us. Take all this unnatural stuff away, we'll be a lot healthier.
My thoughts and Prayers are with you and your family Giuliana. I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer( Ductal Carcinoma Citu) this summer, end of June ,2011. I had a partial mastectomy and a lymph-node removed and I have to have radiation 7 weeks of Radiation Therapy. I am in my 3rd week of Radiation Therapy and its going well. Like you, this was a shock to my system, asking God, why me. I started Mammograms when I was in my late 30's because my sister was diagnosed with Stage 3 Breast Cancer in yr 2000. She had to have Chemo Therapy, 23 lymph-node removed and radiation Therapy. It was really awful to see her go through that experience, but Thank God that 11 years later she is Cancer Free. I was tested recently for The cancer Gene and it came back negative. I am very blessed because the Cancer was caught at a very early stage. With the removal of the sentinel lymph-node they were able to see if the Cancer had spread to other areas and Thank God that it was contained in the ducts. My Doctor said that I am one of her success stories because I originally went in complaining about Breast Pain on the left Breast and it turned out that the Breast Cancer was brewing on the right Breast. I have fibroid cystic breast and I can not have caffeine, well that month with the stress of school I over did it and my breast pain was worst. I went in to one of the best clinics in New York State, Wendy Logan and saw my doctor and they did an ultrasound, a mammogram and found a small cyst. The pathologist saw active cells, but not enough to worry about it. As I was walking out of the clinic, the Secretary suggested that I do a screening for MRI. Due to my family history with my sister and a cousin who was recently diagnosed I said sure. I go in for the MRI and my right Breast lit up. If it wasnt for that wonderful secretary and the MRI, it would have gone undetected for a while. The next day I was asked to go back for a biopsy and sure enough it was cancerous tumor. I have to say that at first my initial reaction was "WOW" to hear the Cancer word, was devastating, I felt a huge loss of my health, not know what the outcome would be. But as time went on, and I was educated by my providers, I started feeling a lot better about the whole process. We are so Blessed to live in this day and age where Medicine and Medical technology is so advanced, and e live in a country where we have the best medical providers and that makes a tremendous difference. The hardest part of the process is not understanding your diagnosis, and the waiting on test results. Once you know where you are and you have a better understanding of your situation, things tend to go a lot smoother. I still have my moments, emotions from time to time get the best of me as I am going through pre-menopause but I keep super busy and continue to live a normal life. I work a full time job, I also go to College full time, I have an internship that I do every Sunday and my Radiation treatments 5 days a week. I learned to discipline myself by getting the rest and sleep I need and making sure that I eat a balanced diet. I want to wish you the very best in your Journey Giuliana, good luck with your surgery, Radiation Therapy and your future plans to become a parent.
No matter what, her journey to wanting to create life has lead her to this discovery. She believes that God has a master plan for her and I believe that as well. I am 28 and this summer I had an injury that lead to the discovery of multiple lesions on my bones, which can lead to cancer. For about a week I was under the impression that I did have cancer and it was devastating. I am grateful that I found this early enough to take preventative measures. I am still in need of a biopsy on my pelvic lesion, but I am happy to know what is going on now, and not be surprised later on in life with only 3 months to live. I am a single mother of a 10 year old daughter and I hope to find a great man to have a couple more kids with. My life isn't over and it would be sad to think that I may not ever get that chance to have more kids. When and if I do, I don't care if I'm her age or older. She is not in a good place right now and this is a very bitter sweet moment for her. I'm sure that this journey to conceive has made her want a baby even more so. All in all, it is her body and her business, not anybody else's.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you are in fact, taking some sort of risk with your body by overloading it with massive hormones in the ways that fertility treatments do. Giuliana's own doctor said that he insisted on the mammogram because the hormones stimulate the tumors to grow faster. If hormones had absolutely NO effect then why would they stimulate the tumors? Point in fact, there is a very real risk to participate in fertility treatments. We can argue the percentage of risk, but it is a risk none the less, evidence by the fact that there is no consensus (yet) by the medical community about the real effects of these treatments. This is because it takes years of patients, studies and evaluations to really give an accurate assessment of what the risk might be. Those who jump in early get to be the guinea pigs. There once was a time when Dr.'s prescribed thalidomide for morning sickness and said it wouldn't affect the fetus but as we all know now, it caused massive birth defects. Ooops.
Honestly, what is this fascination with people having their "own" children. If someone like Giuliana wants to be a parent, there are literally THOUSANDS of children all over the world who need parents. Wanting your own child to the degree of harming yourself (or even potentially harming yourself) is selfish and egotistical, period.
If you're so concerned about the thousands of children who need parents, why don't YOU adopt? Why is someone who wants children, but is having trouble conceiving them, considered selfish and egotistical, while someone who can pop out two kids with no effort is NOT thought of as selfish? The desire to have children is identical.
Demonizing people suffering through infertility and asking "why don't you just adopt" is not only insensitive and ignorant of what it takes to adopt a baby (it's not like going to the city pound to adopt a puppy and it can cost just as much if not more than IVF), but also denies the most basic biological instinct of procreation.
Try going to any number of the online forums for couples struggling with infertility and reading up before you pass judgement. Infertility is a pain like no other, and your attitude only causes more pain to someone who has already had their heart broken and is suffering silently every day while trying to hold it together.
Remember, each IVF procedure results in multiple destroyed fertilized eggs. Those of you against abortion, why are you OK with IVF? The end justifies the means?
In any given month, one or more eggs can be fertilized naturally, WITHIN A WOMAN'S BODY but may not develop properly. Equating a failed IVF cycle (where multiple eggs are collected and mixed with sperm, but for some reason don't fertilize or do get fertilize but don't develop into a healthy embryo) with abortion is ridiculous. What, are you going to start demanding that ALL women have monthly ultrasounds to see if they've conceived or not and then prosecute the women who have eggs that fertilize but result in a miscarriage instead of a baby?
...by the way Guiliana's older sister just had another baby and I believe she's over 40. So...sometimes it's just hard luck. Same families...same gene pool.
Tanus Set:
WOW, you take a story about a woman announcing the tragic fact that she has been diagnosed with breast cancer--and turn it into your own bitter rant of ignorant generalizations.
Please allow Captain Obvious to enlighten you to the fact that when it comes to pregnancy, each woman needs to be considered on an individual basis--it's so ignorant to generalize. There are a lot of very healthy 40 year olds who could run circles around a lot of very unhealthy 25 year olds.
I think the word society uses for people like you is "hater". Enjoy marinating yourself in your sour, sad attitude.
There are scores of medical research studies looking for a link between IVF and cancer - and there is not one study to suggest that the two are causally related.
The largest study, published in a recent volume of the journal Human Reproduction, looked at 24,000 women who had gone through IVF treatments over a 24 year period and compared them with 1.4 million women of reproductive age in the general population. Not only was there no evidence that IVF causes cancer, but after accounting for all other variables, the overall risk of cancer was about 25% lower for the women who had undergone IVF treatment and the risk for breast and cervical cancer were significantly lower than researchers expected.
Does that mean that IVF decreases the risk of cancers in women? Not likely. But it may mean - as in Giuliana's case - that early screening as part of infertility diagnosis and treatment works as it is designed, or even that women who choose to go through IVF treatments are healthier than the general population.
Very likely the womens diagnosed with cancer during or after IVF / IUI or any other hormonal treatment might not be included in those studies because of doctors ignorance. IVF & Pharmaceuticals are a big business let's not forget that... I am one example... I got pregnant after 6 years of infertility and treatments (numerous IVFs and IUI cycles) and have been diagnosed with breast cancer while 4 months pregnant. Breast screening during infertility treatments is not common at all, more than that Giuliana is so lucky to have had that done...
As of now, I am happy that my baby is healthy and doing well, while I am going through delayed treatments. But none of my doctors (the fertility doctor, the high risk OB, the oncologist...) is following up on a possible connection between my breast cancer and IVF. And I had zero risk factors, no family background, very healty, etc... so who can say IVF did not play a factor in my breast cancer after years of different hormones going through my body? Definitelly not me, or the readers of this post... If all womens like me would be included in the 24,000 womens study, the results would be so different... but we don't have time for that, we need to get better first! And I am sure the fertility clinics do not release our data for those studies as they would loose business and increase the fear...
Biologically speaking, if women had their first child in their 20s they wouldn't be needing IVF in their 30s to get pregnant. That's simply the way it is. The cancer protection also comes with having and nursing babies in the 20s. Nobody is making a judgment. If women choose to have a career first then there are risks that go with waiting. Many times it turns out but it isn't ideal. Better and healthier to have babies young. All the Hollywood ladies wait until they are in their 40s, a time when they would normally becoming grandmothers in the real World! Once they reach their mid to late 40s they aren't even using their own eggs, unless they had the forethought to freeze them ahead of time. Maybe they think they appear "young" by having babies when they are old, but they don't. People looking on simply think they are babysitting their grandkids! Many are way too thin to even hold a pregnancy, and especially when they are older they need all the help they can get.