I read that even with a hysterectomy "reproductive" cancer possible, WTF?

[liberalhistorian]

In the medical news section of a newspaper, I just read that, even if you've had a total hysterectomy, you can still get some types of ovarian cancer and other reproductive cancers, meaning you still have to be vigilant for the signs, get early testing, etc. WTF????

I had a total hysterectomy last summer, and was so relieved that there were at least a couple of types of cancer I didn't have to worry about getting anymore (although breast cancer is still, unfortunately, always a possibility). NOW I find out that that isn't the case at all! Does anyone know if that's really true and, if it is, how can that be possible?

I guess I'm getting a little hypervigilant about things like cancer, since my best friend endured a five-year bout with it (and is still here, thankfully), my uncle is dealing with it, and now a long-time friend my age (38), a mother of four young children, was recently diagnosed with breast cancer.

[demnan]

1. Rule of thumb is

if they took it out already (cervix, ovaries, etc) how can you get cancer of it?

[HereSince1628]

2. Strictly speaking hysterectomy is only the uterus...

I have no idea how common it is to limit surgery to the uterus or to include other members of the reproductive tract. I would assume it is a matter of the type of cancer and the risk of its growth.

My wife had a hysterectomy in her late twenties, and then breast cancer in her early 40's.

IMHO the advice to be vigilant isn't bad.

[SoCalDem]

3. Maybe because the cells metasticized before the hsyterectomy?

If a person had a "precancerous" condition, and some of the cells broke away and ended up elsewhere, they might eventually develop into cancer?? Don't know , but that would seem to be the only way I could think of :shrug:..

I do know that when a hysterectomy had been performed AFTER a diagnosis, it's not unusual for it to develop elsewhere.. A young friend died a few years ago at 33 of an "undiagnosed" form of cancer.. They never did determine where it originated..

[liberalhistorian]

4. That's a possibility,

I had everything removed, including ovaries, and yet this article was saying that it's still possible to ovarian or uterine cancer! That could very well be that it's caused by pre-cancerous cells that stay in the body after removal of the organs. That's a bummer to me, because I didn't want to ever get either one of those cancers, especially ovarian.

[flamingyouth]

5. That's really scary

Do you have a link to the article? I'd like to read it. Thanks! :hi:

[alwynsw]

6. "Tatal hysterectomy"

Generally is used to refer to a combination of a hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) and oofrectomy (removal of the ovaries), along with the associated plumbing, i.e. fallopian tubes, performed during the same surgery.

As I learned long ago in those evil (med) anatomy and physiology classes, both cancerous and precancerous cells can mestacize. Therefore, if a precancerous or cancerous condition exists at the time of the -ectomy(ies), it is indeed possible to develop cancer even after the removal of the affected tissue and organs. Bear in mind that hysterectomies and oofrectomies are often performed for reasons, such as severe hormonal imbalances, other than precancerous or cancerous conditions. Screening for cancerous cells is often notdone in these procedures.

I'm rambling again.

The gist: SoCalDem is right on the mark with her post. And I still want your new leather to go with my leather (furniture).

[thom1102]

7. My mother is a survivor of two different types of Breast Cancer...

And they recommended that she get an hysterectomy to minimize her chances of getting any reproductive cancers. They told her that it would reduce her chances to 1%. So she agreed. That was three years ago, and she has just finished one year of chemotherapy for a reproductive related peritoneal cancer, so yes it does happen.

Apparently, the cells in the peritoneal cavity are very closely related to the cells of the reproductive system, and that is where the risk for reproductive cancers occurs.

[liberalhistorian]

8. Not to sound ignorant,

but what is the peritoneal cavity?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. Basically

everything in your abdomen. The peritoneum is the lining of the abdominal cavity.

You may have heard of peritonitis, which is what can happen if your appendix bursts.

[liberalhistorian]

10. So wouldn't that be more like

stomach cancer than ovarian cancer?

[thom1102]

12. Except that the cells are closer in composition to those found..

in the reproductive system.

[Bunny]

11. I had a part-hysterectomy three years ago.

They removed my uterus, tubes, and cervix. I still have ovaries. Each year my doc makes me get a pap test, and I ask "Why?" because I do not have a cervix. He explained that there can still be abnormal tissue changes in the upper end of the vagina, so even tho' there's no cervix I could still get cancer. I presume that the pap test would reveal abnormal changes present in vaginal cancer? I don't quite understand it.

As far as your question, I was wondering: isn't endometriosis a result of "rogue" uterine cells that somehow invade the abdominal cavity, leading to adhesions outside of the reproductive organs themselves? Maybe these "rogue" cells are floating around in your peritoneum, and could technically cause "uterine" cancer even tho' your uterus is gone?

I don't know. This will have me thinking for a while.

[liberalhistorian]

15. Now that's something I hadn't thought of,

one of the several reasons I had the hysterectomy was due to endometriosis, as well as fibroids and ovarian cysts. I'm no doctor, but it would seem to me that your suggestion would make sense. That is, indeed, a scary thought.

[flamingyouth]

18. Scary thought

I'm having so many reproductive problems now ... makes me shudder. You make a good point.

[liberalhistorian]

19. I still think a hysterectomy would be the best

solution for your situation, but that is, of course, up to you! I just feel so much better without all that pain and mess, and I hate to see other women going through the same thing when they often don't have to!

[Bunny]

20. It was the best thing I've ever done (medically speaking)

The incessant daily bleeding, spotting, etc. was so detrimental to the quality of my life. I was so pissed off that I couldn't get my original gynecologist to understand this. He told me more than once that it may just be something I'd "have to learn to live with". My ass!!! I could not accept that, in America, in the 21st century, I'd have to tolerate this for as much as 12-14 more years! Easy for him to say!

Anyway, I found a new doc and within three months had my hysterectomy scheduled. And I was fortunate in that I was able to keep my ovaries, so I don't have to deal with HRT yet.

I would say that if you're having problems, and your childbearing days are over, go for it. I have never once regretted it, although I could do without the occasional dribbles!

[flamingyouth]

22. I hear you, LH

Now that I'm turning 35, I'm leaning more and more in that direction. After last week's hell with cramps, it's hard for me to feel a lot of love for my uterus right now.

Anyway, I'll keep you posted. Thank you for your help and info in this regard - I really appreciate hearing from someone who's "been there." :hi:

[Snow]

13. Part of the problem lies in how we define diseases (WARNING - lecture

coming!)

*ahem* You see, in western medicine we define disease in three broad ways:
By the causal agent (eg most infectious diseases are defined by the bug that causes 'em)

By the symptoms (eg, depression, Parkinson's Disease)

By the site affected (most cancers, pneumonia)

Now then, this affects drastically how you think about the causes of a given disease and how you go about looking for the cause. For example, we really truly don't understand the causes of breast cancer very well, and in my humble but reasonably well-informed opinion, a large part of the reason for that is because we think of the breast as a female organ so obviously the cause must lie in female hormones. Almost all the etiologic research out there starts and ends with the idea that something in the line of female hormones causes breast cancer. There's two problems with that - there might be something else causing the disease, and maybe breast cancer is not a site-specific disease but a site-specific manifestation of a systemic disease. There are people doing research in both areas, but as yet they're fringe, although not regarded as nuts - just not regarded as mainstream, so they usually don't get funded very well.

So, can you get uterine cancer without a uterus, which I guess is what you were asking.....not impossible, but the risk has to be waaayy down. But not impossible. In the meanwhile, fasten your safey belt, don't drink & drive, don't smoke.

[Bunny]

14. Men get breast cancer as well,

albeit in much lower numbers.

[Snow]

16. Exactly - I think the male brca incidence rate is about

a tenth of female rates - and the hormone theory gets applied there as well, because as you doubtless know, people of all major genders secrete and circulate hormones also of all major genders -

[Bunny]

17. When you say "major genders", are you saying that

faceitiously, or is that an actual term? I'm just curious because I've never heard it before.

[Snow]

21. Just being facetious - I read it in a Dave Berry book,

when he was visiting a public bath in Japan and observed it to be occupied by "all the major genders".