Breast Cancer

Who Benefits from Genetic Disease Testing? Possibly You.

|

Angelina Jolie

As all the world knows, actress Angelina Jolie had her breasts cut off as way to prevent breast cancer that she was very likely to get some day. Jolie took action after a genetic test revealed that she carried a variant of the BRCA 1 gene that boosted her lifetime risk of breast cancer to nearly 90 percent. So why shouldn't every woman take this test?

The usual response is that only 10 percent of women have this genetic risk of breast cancer. Writing over at the Washington Post's "She The People" blog, Lisa Friedman, a partner in the Enterprise Development Group in Palo Alto, California, does not find that figure all that comforting. Friedman explains:

Almost one in 10 of the women who get breast or ovarian cancer are born with a gene that could warn them. Advance warning could give them choices for early detection and even for prevention — but most of them still don't know.

In the U.S. alone, close to 300,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year. That means 300,000 this year, 300,000 next year, the year after that, and every year until we find a cure. Globally,1.6 million women are diagnosed every single year….

Another 22,000 women each year will get the news that they have ovarian cancer—a diagnosis that is much more dangerous because by the time a woman feels symptoms, her cancer has most likely already spread. Without an early warning, a woman may feel fine until her cancer is no longer treatable. In the United States, more than 14,000 women each year die from ovarian cancer, known in treatment centers as "the silent killer."…

For nine out of 10 of these women, there currently is nothing we can do to help them in advance. Their diagnoses of breast or ovarian cancer are sporadic, random, impossible to predict. But 10 percent of these women can learn their risk ahead of time. They can take steps that make it extremely unlikely that they will ever get [this kind of cancer].

As it happens, Friedman's test result showed that she, like Jolie, was at higher risk and so she decided to get a prophylactic double mastectomy. It turned out to be too late, because she already had breast cancer.

Currently, the most comprehensive breast and ovarian cancer test is offered by Myriad Genetics for the steep price of $3,000 to $4,000. But Myriad's patent monopoly will soon end and be made irrelevant anyway by much cheaper whole genome testing. Even now, the genome screening company 23andMe includes testing for the three major BRCA variants that account for account for 80-90 percent of all hereditary breast and ovarian cancer cases among women with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors. Anyone can get that test with lots of other genetic information for only $99.

It wasn't always the case that women were allowed to have this kind of genetic information so that they could make their own choices. Way back in 1999, my article, "Warning: Bioethics May Be Dangerous to Your Health," reported the case of Joy Simha:

In 1996, a 28-year-old breast cancer survivor named Joy Simha decided to take the new genetic test for the breast cancer gene BRCA1. If Simha tested positive for the gene, she would face a 50 percent to 85 percent chance of her breast cancer recurring or of developing ovarian cancer in her lifetime. As a preventive measure, she planned to have her remaining breast removed. But her oncologists at Sloan-Kettering Memorial Cancer Center in New York refused to tell her the results of her own test.

It was just a very paternalist attitude," Simha says now. "They kept telling me, `We really feel that the results could be dangerous if they are revealed to you at the wrong time.'" So Simha took her frustration to the press. "If I did not want to know the results of my tests," she wrote to The New York Times Magazine, "I would not have given the doctors my blood."

By refusing to reveal such test results to their patient, Simha's doctors believed they were practicing medicine at the highest ethical level; keeping patients in the dark in such circumstances has been recommended by such prestigious bioethics authorities as a 53-member panel of ethicists and lawyers chaired by Stanford University law professor Henry Greely. "The test for BRCA1 should be confined to the research setting," declared the panel's report which was presented at a conference at the University of Southern California's Pacific Center for Health Policy in 1996. The ethics panel advised women not to take the commercial test for BRCA1 because "there are no known methods for preventing breast or ovarian cancer that would be particularly important to women with versions of these genes."

Nor is the panel at the USC conference alone in its opinion. In 1998, George Annas, director of the Law, Medicine, and Ethics Program at the Boston University Schools of Medicine and Public Health, conceded that the carrier of the BRCA1 gene has a high risk of contracting breast cancer. Nevertheless, he argued in his book, Some Choice: Law, Medicine, and the Market, "Since there is no way to prevent this disease, what good is knowing you will probably get it in the future?" Francis Collins, the director of the Human Genome Project, agreed in U.S. Senate testimony in 1996 that the BRCA1 test should not be commercially available to women. According to Collins, the information that a woman might get from such a test is "toxic."…

But Simha's story has a happy ending. As a result of the press attention, her doctors relented and gave her the test results. She had tested negative, and she dropped plans for another mastectomy. Far from having a "toxic" result, the test actually helped Simha avoid another dangerous and painful procedure.

And the bioethical paternalists were wrong even back in the late 20th century about there not being anything women could do with the genetic test information to prevent breast cancer. As I noted:

Furthermore, the Pacific Center was wrong in stating that there is no way to avoid breast cancer. A Mayo Clinic study published in January in The New England Journal of Medicine found that "surgery that removes the breasts as a preventive measure before the appearance of cancer reduces the risk of breast cancer by approximately 90 percent for women at moderate to high risk for the disease." That is precisely the treatment that Simha had planned.

The most important point, however, is:

But though the Mayo study is important, it is beside the ethical point: Even in the face of medical uncertainty, such decisions should be up to Simha and other at-risk women, not a panel of imperious bioethicists.(emphasis added).

Sadly, bioethical paternalism with regard to genetic testing remains rife. For example, see my 2013 blogpost, "Besides Paternalistic Bioethicists and Doctors, Who's Afraid of Their Genomes? Nobody Much."

Again, hooray for Ms. Jolie and Ms. Friedman for telling women that genetic information is not, as Collins once claimed, "toxic," and that they are competent to make decisions about their own health.

Disclosure: I am a very happy customer of 23andMe. The company tells me that I do not have the BRCA variants that also significantly increase the risk of prostate cancer.

NEXT: Bitcoin Creator May Be Japanese Mathematician

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This whole Jolie surgery thing just highlights how scientifically and medically illiterate the population is. This better not be the future of medicine…

    1. You keep saying that like it is true, both on this and the original article.

      Care to elaborate?

      1. Her risk is only 90% if you accept the assumption that there’s nothing she could have done to prevent it (i mean other than preemptive surgery). I’m one of those crazy people who are convinced that heart disease, cancer, obesity, and a whole host of other diseases are preventable via nutrition and adequate vit D.
        So the problem with Jolie IMHO is that this is reinforcing the notion that we should continue to ignore/not research the causes of disease and jump straight to treatment, in some cases drastic.

  2. Ron couldn’t you find a photo of AJol that wasn’t made of wax?

    1. HA: Must use rights cleared photos with the right aspect ratio. My apologies.

      1. No worries. I feel the pain of rights management.

      2. DRM sucks, but please claim credit for choosing a photo of her cut off at the bust!

  3. It sounds like this test is infinitely more useful than annual mammograms at preventing breast cancer. 10% is not a small number in medical terms. That’s a HUGE number. If you can tell 10% of the population with certainty that they are a carrier for a high-risk gene I cannot fathom any reason why you would not want everyone to take this test.

  4. +1
    I just declined cataract surgery because there was a 10% risk of retinal detachment–my eyesight (bad as it is) is worth more to me than going without glasses and a 1 in 10 risk of blindness…

  5. Will genetic disease testing reveal the likelihood of transwarp turning people into giant horny salamanders?

    1. Dude, we all have the same likelihood of that: 1.

  6. As all the world knows, actress Angelina Jolie had her breasts cut off as way to prevent breast cancer that she was very likely to get some day.

    I have a similar defense against colon cancer.

  7. 10 percent of women have this genetic risk of breast cancer.

    You phrase it as if ten percent of all women have this genetic risk…

    Almost one in 10 of the women who get breast or ovarian cancer are born with a gene that could warn them.

    …but the article makes it sound like one in ten of the women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have the genetic marker.

    1. Yup. The prevalence of the gene isn’t anywhere close to accounting for the high occurrence of breast cancer.

  8. Off-Topic, but I just saw parts of “Inglorious Bastards” yesterday. What an odd film.

    1. Meh, there were only two truly great scenes in that movie: the opening scene with Hans Landa and the farmer, and the entire bar sequence.

      Other than it was a bit of a disjointed mess.

      1. So…a typical Tarantino film? Good to know – I won’t bother.

  9. Friedman’s test result showed that she, like Jolie, was at higher risk and so she decided to get a prophylactic double mastectomy. It turned out to be too late, because she already had breast cancer.

    Which means that in her case, she’d’ve been better off not being tested

    1. Would she?

      It did mean she found out about cancer earlier than she would have otherwise, which is frequently correlated with better outcomes.

      1. Shouldn’t she have been tested for breast cancer after the genetic screening but before the mastectomy? That seems like the proper response. Am I missing something here?

        1. I’d’ve actually thought the test for breast cancer before the screening. Because if you actually have breast cancer, you don’t need to know if you had a predilection for it.

          The story still isn’t clear, though. Did she have a double mastectomy and then find out she had breast cancer — either from an examination of the removed breasts, or from development of symptoms later? Or, once she found out she had breast cancer, did she get treated for that and forego the double mastectomy she had intended to get?

  10. Even now, the genome screening company 23andMe includes testing for the three major BRCA variants that account for account for 80-90 percent of all hereditary breast and ovarian cancer cases among women with Ashkenazi Jewish ancestors.

    Boy, that Ashkenazy sure gets around.

  11. Better alt-text: head on stick.

  12. Apparently there are more than one type of breast cancer, and some variants are more aggressive than others. I don’t know enough about which type Angelina inherited, but if it killed her mother, it may have been a very aggressive type.

    I had a DNA analysis by 23andMe and it showed I did NOT have this variant. Doesn’t mean I’ll never get breast cancer, but still, it’s somewhat of a relief.

    1. I’m a bit confused about 23andme’s results. They don’t tell you how broadly those three mutations apply to the general population, just that they’re highly prevalent in the Ashkenazi population.

      1. I have a feeling that 23andMe will be able to test for substantially greater numbers of genetic markers once gene patents start expiring in the next few years.

        1. It’ll be interesting to see what 23andme does over the next few years. Whole genome testing is becoming much more practical cost-wise. I think it’s ~$5,500 to get the whole enchilada now.

          Slightly OT: I was skimming through the “recommended for you” section on Android’s app market and there was a lot of astrology with “people who downloaded the 23andme app also liked:”

          1. Until whole genome testing is covered by insurance, it’ll remain a niche market. That could happen soon, of course. 23andMe has the nice advantage of a very low price point. They have the disadvantage of being limited by gene patents. I’m pretty sure whole genome services can bypass those patents, as they don’t make use of the “functional derivatives” of genes (I think gene patents as they exist are ridiculous).

    2. You don’t “inherit” breast cancer. You inherit a gene that codes for a protein that has a strong correlation with cancer.

      /pedant

  13. I can remember back in the ’80s when the test for the Huntington’s gene became available. All the ‘bioethicists’ were going around saying that nobody should be allowed to take the test, since there is nothing that can be done to prevent the disease. They insisted it would lead to suicides and all sorts of mental anguish.
    As far as I have heard, none of that ever happened and few people regreted being tested. I know some people based their decision on whether or not to have kids on their test results, which definitely sounds like a good thing to me. (In addition to worries about passing on the gene, I bet most people would not want to have kids if they’re likely to become invalids by the time their kids are teenagers.)

  14. As all the world knows, actress Angelina Jolie had her breasts cut off as way to prevent breast cancer that she was very likely to get some day.

    Damn, Ron, she didn’t have her breasts “cut off”. She essentially had the filling removed and replaced with implants.

  15. Really, wow now why didnt I ever think of that?

    http://www.Proxys4u.tk

  16. Genetic testing is conducted on blood and other tissues to find genetic disorders. There are more than 2000 genetic tests out there, but you need to be aware about imperfect test. As you can read at techcrunch.com how cheap genetic testing can complicate screening of cancer. You have to take precaution while choosing the tests, however, this test provide a sense of relief to patient about managing their health care.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.