Angelina Jolie’s State of the Art Cancer Treatment

By George Johnson | May 20, 2013 10:21 am

The protein produced by the BRCA1 gene. Wikimedia Commons.

It’s rare for a decision involving a genetic predisposition to seem so clearcut — an 87 percent chance of getting breast cancer before you die. Those were the odds Angelina Jolie was given after she was found to have inherited a defective gene called BRCA1. There was also the matter of BRCA-related ovarian cancer, with her lifetime odds put at 50 percent. With no other effective remedies in sight, she decided on a double mastectomy with plans to follow that with an oophorectomy, the removal of her ovaries. For all the talk about sequencing the cancer genome and precisely designed therapies, all that science could offer in the way of prevention was the amputation of healthy body parts.

I was traveling last week when she explained her decision in a widely discussed op-ed piece in the New York Times. I didn’t write much about BRCA in The Cancer Chronicles, so I spent some time this weekend getting a stronger sense of what is known about the disease.

Inherited BRCA defects are very rare, contributing to just a few percent of breast cancer cases, and Jolie’s situation was extreme. The average lifetime risk of women who have inherited the mutation is 65 percent, or about five times the normal odds. It was the actress’s family history that put her at the top end of the scale. A posting on the website of the cancer center where she was treated provided more details. Her mother had both kinds of cancer and died from the ovarian, which had also struck Jolie’s grandmother.

Even with such strong predispositions, cancer is not inevitable. When you dig into the details the ambiguities arise.

BRCA is short for breast cancer. It is a gene, like Rb (for retinoblastoma), perversely named for a condition it is meant to prevent. The healthy genes (there are BRCA1 and BRCA2) produce proteins that help repair the damage to the genome that occurs during normal cellular operations. If a woman inherits certain BRCA mutations, the repair function may be jeopardized. Fortunately people are born with two copies of every gene, one from each parent. It is when the matching gene — the backup — also becomes corrupted that trouble can begin. That might happen because of exposure to a carcinogen, a hormonal imbalance, or a spontaneous mutation — one with no real cause. More damage then accumulates, and the right combination of mutations may turn the cell into a malignant one.

Because of all the complications, the actual risk for an individual with a BRCA1 mutation varies widely around the average. The canonical number — a 65 percent lifetime risk for women — comes from studies of families that carried the mutation and had multiple cases of breast cancer, often occurring at an early age. Because they are closely related, the women may also have shared other inherited mutations — ones whose role science has yet to pinpoint — as well as environmental exposures. They may have eaten the same kinds of food. Any of these factors may have contributed to the cancer.

The result might be that the risk for the BRCA mutation alone has been overstated. BRCA carriers without a family history may face less than a 40 percent chance of getting the disease. Conversely, a University of Toronto study found that women whose families had a propensity for the cancer were four times more likely to get it themselves, even if they did not have BRCA mutations.

Given her own odds and the murky state of the science, Jolie’s decision made sense. BRCA-related breast cancers are often triple-negative, the hardest kind to treat. And for all breast cancers that can’t be stopped from metastasizing, even the most advanced therapies fall far short of a cure. The same is true for ovarian cancer.

There is no way to know if in the next few years less radical alternatives will be found — treatments that arrest the disease rather than merely staving off death a few months longer. Maybe other factors will be identified allowing the risk to be more precisely measured. Someday people may look back on preventive mastectomies as barbaric. But given the glacial pace of progress, Jolie and her doctors had every reason to be pessimistic and to chose the course they did.

Coming soon: Why is there no Gleevec for breast cancer?

  • tüp bebek

    hard treatment.. :-(

  • Bill Patterson

    “Someday people may look back on preventive mastectomies as barbaric.”

    I suppose it would look radical if in the future a simple convenient solution is found, but I do wonder if future generations would really even care about chopping off body parts and reconstructing them if the reconstructions are of a high quality. Once plastic surgery gets to a point where it’s extremely safe and indistinguishable from someone who just happens to be biologically blessed, I wouldn’t be surprised if everybody who can afford it will get it. Jolie makes a point of saying she doesn’t think it diminished her femininity, which presumably wouldn’t be the case if she couldn’t get the reconstructive surgery for whatever reason. Of course women who get cosmetic surgery often do it to improve their own feelings of femininity. Maybe that’s just a sad comment on society but that’s a whole different question to whether the very idea of a double mastectomy will one day be seen as a barbaric intervention, or whether it will one day be seen as weird that people would even think it’s radical to change one’s body so much.

    So yes, the decision seems very reasonable to me too.

  • xuyf

    Basic car maintenance is the eternal topic for all the car owners. You may install the new auto tyre after long distance driving or when the season changes. And you can change the comfortable seat covers for good car appearance or some new car accessories such as car monitor and rear park assist for your vehicle! Maybe change the car grille is a good idea!


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Fire in the Mind

Whether a subtle new pattern shows up in an experiment on the Higgs boson, an epidemiological report about a suspected cancer cluster, or a double-blind trial purporting to demonstrate ESP, it can be maddeningly difficult to distinguish between what we see and what we think we see. "Fire in the Mind" takes a look at the big questions behind today’s science news.

About George Johnson

George Johnson writes about science for the New York Times, National Geographic Magazine, Slate, and other publications. His nine books include The Cancer Chronicles: Unlocking Medicine's Deepest Mystery (August 2013), The Ten Most Beautiful Experiments, A Shortcut Through Time, and Fire in the Mind. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award and has twice been a finalist for the Royal Society science book prize. Co-founder and director of the Santa Fe Science Writing Workshop, he can be found on the Web at Twitter @byGeorgeJohnson.


See More


@byGeorgeJohson onTwitter

Collapse bottom bar