• Vie. Ago 1st, 2025

fifebusinessjournal.co.uk

fifebusinessjournal.co.uk

Study suggests more breast removal surgeries could prevent cancer cases

PorStaff

Jul 24, 2025
Pic: iStock

Thousands of cancer cases could potentially be prevented if more women were offered breast removal surgery, according to a study. A mastectomy is offered to some people who already have breast cancer, but research suggests about 6,500 cases could be prevented each year if more preventative procedures were done.

Risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) are currently only an option for women with the BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2 genes. But the study says people with other genes – including ATM, CHEK2, RAD51C, RAD51D – might benefit if they also have other high-risk factors. These include family history of the disease, whether they breastfed, mammogram density, and the number of children they’ve had.

Researchers suggest that if all women aged 30 to 55 with a risk of 35% or more could be identified – and they all then had RRM – an estimated 6,538 cases could be prevented each year. That equates to about 11% of the 59,000 UK women diagnosed annually.

The economic evaluation by Queen Mary University of London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) said it would be a cost-effective strategy. It added that women carrying one of the other genes linked to breast cancer could potentially be found by «cascade testing», in which tests are offered to family members.

One of the authors said it was the first time a risk factor for offering RRM had been defined. «Our results could have significant clinical implications to expand access to mastectomy beyond those patients with known genetic susceptibility in high penetrance genes – BRCA1/ BRCA2/ PALB2 – who are traditionally offered this,» said Professor Ranjit Manchanda, professor of gynecological oncology at Queen Mary. «We recommend that more research is carried out to evaluate the acceptability, uptake, and long-term outcomes of RRM among this group,» he added.

Read more from Sky News: Antarctica’s oldest ice arrives in the UK for analysis, Babies born with DNA from three people in the UK

Louise Grimsdell, Breast Cancer Now senior clinical nurse specialist, stressed that women should consider all options – not just surgery. «While this modeling provides valuable insights into the cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing mastectomy for women with a high risk of developing breast cancer, each individual must be offered all risk-management options that are suitable for them,» she said. «Choosing to have risk-reducing surgery is a complex and deeply personal decision that comes with emotional and physical implications,» added Ms. Grimsdell. «So, it’s vital women can consider all their options, including screening and risk-reducing medications, and are supported by their clinician to make an informed decision that’s right for them. It’s also crucial that the unacceptably long waits that far too many women who chose risk-reducing surgery are facing are urgently tackled.»

The study appears in the journal JAMA Oncology.

SOURCE

Por Staff

What is the car finance scandal – and what could today’s ruling mean for motorists? The UK’s Supreme Court is poised to deliver a groundbreaking ruling today with potentially billions of pounds at stake for banks and millions of motorists. The crucial issue before the country’s highest court is whether customers should be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchases. However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court is currently only addressing one of two parallel cases concerning the mis-selling of car finance. Here is a breakdown of both cases and how today’s ruling may impact any future compensation scheme. The first case under consideration by the Supreme Court revolves around complaints regarding the non-disclosure of commission, which affects 99% of car finance cases. Essentially, when individuals purchase a car on finance, they are essentially loaned the money which they then pay off in monthly installments. Brokers, who facilitate the finance plans, earn money through a commission, which is a percentage of the interest payments. Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of three motorists who were unaware that car dealerships they entered finance deals with were receiving a 25% commission, which was added to their bills without their knowledge. The ruling deemed it unlawful for car dealers to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent. However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, leading to the case being escalated to the Supreme Court. The second case, driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) where brokers and dealers increased interest rates without informing buyers, resulting in higher commissions. This practice was banned by the FCA in 2021, but many consumers have since complained about being overcharged before the ban. The Financial Ombudsman Service has reported handling 20,000 complaints related to this issue. In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into the potential overcharging of motor finance customers due to past use of DCAs. Car finance scandal ruling implications for motorists
Drone incidents in UK prisons increase by over 40%
3-year-old girl found dead in Leeds home, sparking murder investigation

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *

You missed

What is the car finance scandal – and what could today’s ruling mean for motorists? The UK’s Supreme Court is poised to deliver a groundbreaking ruling today with potentially billions of pounds at stake for banks and millions of motorists. The crucial issue before the country’s highest court is whether customers should be fully informed about the commission dealers earn on their purchases. However, it’s important to note that the Supreme Court is currently only addressing one of two parallel cases concerning the mis-selling of car finance. Here is a breakdown of both cases and how today’s ruling may impact any future compensation scheme. The first case under consideration by the Supreme Court revolves around complaints regarding the non-disclosure of commission, which affects 99% of car finance cases. Essentially, when individuals purchase a car on finance, they are essentially loaned the money which they then pay off in monthly installments. Brokers, who facilitate the finance plans, earn money through a commission, which is a percentage of the interest payments. Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled in favor of three motorists who were unaware that car dealerships they entered finance deals with were receiving a 25% commission, which was added to their bills without their knowledge. The ruling deemed it unlawful for car dealers to receive commissions from lenders without obtaining the customer’s informed consent. However, British lender Close Brothers and South Africa’s FirstRand appealed the decision, leading to the case being escalated to the Supreme Court. The second case, driven by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), involves discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) where brokers and dealers increased interest rates without informing buyers, resulting in higher commissions. This practice was banned by the FCA in 2021, but many consumers have since complained about being overcharged before the ban. The Financial Ombudsman Service has reported handling 20,000 complaints related to this issue. In January 2024, the FCA announced a review into the potential overcharging of motor finance customers due to past use of DCAs. Car finance scandal ruling implications for motorists