How is genetic risk for breast cancer evaluated?

A letter in the current People magazine referring to Jolie’s recent announcement of the removal of her ovaries, following a double mastectomy last year, illustrates how at least one person is misconstruing the genetics of Jolie’s situation:

“How did she go about getting these types of tests and elective surgeries? It would be good to know if the same options are available for all women or if these procedures are something only afforded to the rich and famous.”

Angelina Jolie was tested and treated because of her family history, not her fame and fortune. Any genetic counselor or primary care provider would have been alert to her background: Her mother, grandmother, greatgrandmother, aunt, and a cousin had BRCA1-associated cancers.

That heritage places Jolie at far greater risk than most women. Mutations in the two BRCA genes account for only 5-10% of breast cancer cases and about 15% of ovarian cancers, according to the National Cancer Institute. Based on her family history, Angelina faced an 87% chance of developing breast cancer —  about five times the general population risk — and a 50% risk of developing ovarian cancer.

Read full original article: Assessing Breast Cancer Risk: Beyond the Angelina Effect

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-10_15_14-AM
Viewpoint—A hard look at the Fauci diaries: Do they change what we know about COVID’s origins?
ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-12_42_58-PM
Viewpoint: Fact-checking CNN interview with RFK, Jr. underscores the depth of his disinformation delusions
Picture1
Hiroshima at 81: America’s new nuclear bomb, a buried Iranian target, and a question no one wants to ask
png-food-sweetener-nutri
Junk science alert: Does a recent ballyhooed study really prove that artificial sweeteners are worse for your brain than sugar? 
Screenshot-2026-08-05-at-7.37.27-PM-1
Facts & Fallacies podcast: 'Zombie apocalypse'? Cities move toward drug legalization, flirt with disaster
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-11_19_30-AM
41-state Cyclospora outbreak exposes widespread state-to-state communication failures
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-07_52_00-PM
No liability for scientific due diligence: California Supreme Court rejects bizarre lawsuit faulting Gilead for fully evaluating HIV drug before release
Screenshot-2026-08-05-at-8.51.10-AM
Viewpoint: ‘ICUs were empty in NYC and across the US’: RFK, Jr. accuses pro-vaccine liberals of exaggerating the number of COVID deaths
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-17-2026-09_50_27-AM
Viewpoint: How disease tracking and prevention has cratered under the Kennedy-Trump administration
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-4-2026-10_56_29-AM
Viewpoint: Viral social media misinformation drives cancer patients toward ‘wellness grifters’ and dangerous, unregulated supplements
ChatGPT-Image-Aug-5-2026-09_54_10-AM
Viewpoint: Data center rejections hit 275 in 2026. Opponents are not the Luddites portrayed by the media
ChatGPT Image Jul 29, 2026, 06_26_01 PM 2
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Organic food myths make a comeback on Instagram, with Dr. Kevin Folta
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.