
Celebrity diagnoses underscore rising breast cancer rates in young women
June 9 (UPI) -- More young women in the United States are being diagnosed with breast cancer, and several celebrities have helped raise awareness by sharing their stories.
Singer Jessie J, 37, said last week that she has early-stage breast cancer and will have surgery this month. "Bachelorette" star Katie Thurston, 34, is documenting her treatment for stage 4 breast cancer. Actress Danielle Fishel, 43, also shared her diagnosis last summer, NBC News said in a new report.
The rise in cases reflects a national trend. Between 2012 and 2021, breast cancer rates rose 1.4% each year in women under 50, compared with 0.7% each year in those 50 and older.
Rates have increased across all racial and ethnic groups, especially among Asian American and Pacific Islander women under 50. Their breast cancer rates have jumped nearly 50% since 2000.
Black women are more likely than other groups to be diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40, and they are also more likely to die from the disease, NBC News said.
Routine mammograms usually start at age 40, and younger women are rarely screened unless they're at high risk - such as those with a family history or certain genetic mutation.
Doctors say this delay in screening can make it harder to catch breast cancer early, when it is easier to treat.
"The thought was always, if you had a change in your breast but you were a young woman, it was probably nothing," said Dr. Rani Bansal of Duke University School of Medicine. "As we're seeing more and more younger women get diagnosed ... we need to take these cases seriously."
Symptoms to watch for include lumps or nipple discharge.
Dr. Oluwadamilola Fayanju, chief of breast surgery at Penn Medicine, said her youngest breast cancer patient was just 17.
She said young women should consider getting care at a clinic that specializes in breast imaging.
Experts suspect many factors may play a role, including:
• Hormones
• A diet high in processed foods
• Obesity
• Increased alcohol use
• Exposure to harmful chemicals
Environmental toxins like BPA and Teflon have been widely used for decades. Researchers are now studying how those early exposures might raise cancer risk later on, NBC News reported.
Some studies suggest that chemical hair straighteners ---often used by Black women -- may increase breast cancer risk, possibly by affecting hormones in the body.
Delaying childbirth may also play a role. Women who have babies later in life are more likely to develop postpartum breast cancer - cancers that appear within five to 10 years of giving birth.
Each year, about 18,000 U.S. women are diagnosed with postpartum breast cancer, said Dr. Virginia Borges of the University of Colorado Cancer Center.
Younger women are more likely to be diagnosed with triple-negative breast cancer, a fast-growing type that has fewer treatment options.
Even though overall survival rates are improving, Borges said breast cancer diagnosed before age 35 often spreads more easily. Doctors are still trying to understand why.
"We need more data to better tailor our treatments towards younger women," Bansal added. "A lot of the studies that are done are in older women."
Experts suggest that women who are at higher risk begin screenings as early as age 30. This may include yearly mammograms and breast MRIs.
More information
The American Cancer Society has more on breast cancer screening guidelines.
Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Looser gun laws tied to thousands more US child shooting deaths
US states that loosened their gun laws following a landmark court ruling saw thousands more childhood firearm deaths than they otherwise would have -- the vast majority homicides and suicides -- according to a study published Monday. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and lead author of the paper in JAMA Pediatrics, told AFP he was drawn to the topic as a father wondering whether today's world is safer for children than when he was growing up. "Mortality from car accidents has fallen dramatically, but at the same time, firearm mortality rose and replaced car accidents as the leading cause of death in children over the age of one," he said -- a trend unique among peer nations. To probe this shift, Faust and his colleagues analyzed state-level data before and after McDonald v Chicago, the 2010 Supreme Court decision that extended the Second Amendment to state and local governments. The ruling sparked a wave of legislation, some tightening gun laws but much of it loosening them. The team grouped states into three categories -- most permissive, permissive, and strict -- and used Centers for Disease Control data on firearm deaths among children aged 0–17. They ran an "excess mortality analysis," comparing actual deaths from 2011 to 2023 against projections based on prior trends from 1999 to 2010 and population growth. The results were stark: more than 7,400 excess pediatric firearm deaths in states that loosened gun laws -- including over 6,000 in the most permissive group of states. By contrast, the eight strictest states overall saw no excess deaths. The model predicted 4,267 fatalities, while 4,212 were recorded -- a near-match that bolstered confidence in the analysis. "The biggest thing people always want to know is, what's the intent behind these?" said Faust. "And I think what surprises most people is that accidents are a very small number of these deaths -- it's mostly homicide and suicide." While the study showed strong associations, it cannot prove causation -- a key limitation. But in a test of whether broader increases in violence might explain the trend, rather than changes to the law, the team analyzed non-firearm homicides and suicides and found no similar rise, a result that makes the findings "pretty compelling," said Faust. Black children saw the steepest increases. While the reasons are unclear, the authors speculated that disparities in safe firearm storage could play a role. There were some exceptions. Deaths rose in Illinois and Connecticut despite tighter laws -- though in the latter case, the spike was entirely attributable to the 2012 Sandy Hook mass shooting at an elementary school. "Big picture, we have a major problem in this country," said Faust. "But we also have a handful of states that are resisting these increases and, in fact, turning the other direction." ia/aha
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."


UPI
an hour ago
- UPI
In letter, more than 300 scientists rebuke Trump research cuts, NIH director
June 9 (UPI) -- Hundreds of scientists via the National Institute of Health signed a published letter in protest to NIH leadership and recent cuts by the Trump administration. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political moment over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources," more than 300 scientists wrote Monday to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya in a so-called "Bethesda Declaration" published by Stand Up For Science in rebuke to Trump administration research funding cuts and staff layoffs. They added in the letter to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress overseeing NIH that they "dissent" to Trump's policies that "undermine" the NIH mission, "waste" public resources and harm "the health of Americans and people across the globe." In the open letter, they said the current endeavor to "Make America Healthy Again" referred to "some undefined time in the past." "Keeping NIH at the forefront of biomedical research requires our stalwart commitment to continuous improvement," the letter's writers said, adding that the life-and-death nature of NIH work "demands that changes be thoughtful and vetted." According to the letter, the Trump administration terminated at least 2,100 NIH research grants since January, totaling around $9.5 billion and contracts representing some $2.6 billion in new research. "We urge you as NIH Director to restore grants delayed or terminated for political reasons so that life-saving science can continue," the letter added in part. "This undercuts long-standing NIH policies designed to maximize return on investment by working with grantees to address concerns and complete studies," it said. It further accused the White House of creating a "culture of fear and suppression" among NIH researchers. Bhattacharya, a Stanford University professor and health researcher, called the agency the "crown jewel of American biomedical sciences" and said he had the "utmost respect" for its scientists and mission during his confirmation hearing in March. On Tuesday, Bhattacharya is scheduled to testify before the Senate's Appropriations Committee on Trump's 2026 NIH budget proposal which seeks to cut roughly 40% of NIH's $48 billion budget. "This spending slowdown reflects a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally-appropriated funds for critical NIH research," the scientists penned to Bhattacharya. The letter goes on to characterize it as "dissent" from Trump administration policy, quoting Bhattacharya during his confirmation as saying "dissent is the very essence of science." "Standing up in this way is a risk, but I am much more worried about the risks of not speaking up," says Jenna Norton, a program officer at the NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. "If we don't speak up, we allow continued harm to research participants and public health in America and across the globe," Norton said in a statement, adding that if others don't speak up, "we allow our government to curtail free speech, a fundamental American value."