This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
The report makes three points that resonated with me.
1. Compared with immediate radical prostatectomy, active surveillance for men with low-risk prostate cancer produces only a "very modest" 1.8-month decrease in cancer-specific survival
2. Men on active surveillance enjoyed 6 more years of life free from treatment and its adverse effects
3. Under active surveillance, 36% of men could avoid being treated
And, I would suspect, that for those in the "very" low-risk category (myself included) the numbers in 2. and 3. could be greater: MORE than 6 years free from adverse effects of treatment. MORE than 36% could avoid being treated.
