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.
You say Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I heard, PCa is the second most common form of cancer among men so, the math alone would make it the second largest cause of death among men to a degree, certainly more than 266/100,000.
I am not absolutely certain what you are saying, but it seems you may be incorrect in your statement so Ill try to clarify and, if you are wrong, correct the error:
PCa is not the second most common form of cancer among men, nor, as Liliana says is it the second largest cause of death among men. It is the most common form of cancer in men, but there are more deaths from lung cancer and many more from heart conditions.
Broadly speaking, heart conditions account for about 35% of male deaths in the USA and PCa deaths account for about 3% of male deaths. That is the measure, approximately, in most countries – about 10 times the PCa rate for heart. Of course, the relationships vary as men age – and that is shown in the article that started this discussion.
The statement, misquoted by Liliana, as is so often the case in the media, that PCa is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men is correct, but that is only relative. If a race was organised between an Indie car and a Volkswagen, the outcome would be clear, but saying that the Volkswagen was the second fastest car in the US would be somewhat misleading. I don’t know if you have seen the chart CANCER 2003 ? This was produced a couple of years ago by John E. Holliday, a long time prostate cancer survivor (he was diagnosed a little before I was). It is simplistic but illustrative of the relative dangers of the various forms of cancer.
Every time I read an article like that I get more pissed off... not because the data is wrong but because the doctors who do the research almost never focus on the real problem - on the treatment advice given by many doctors.
I was diagnosed last year at the age of 46 and although it was a shock, I was glad to have the chance to do the research and make a decision on what treatment (if any) I wanted. I talk to many men with low PSA and gleason score who are told they need to get treated right away or who have the latest treatment pushed on them.
Keeping our heads in the sand clearly isn't the answer, understanding the risk and treatment options is.
I have to say to all of this that I personally know 3 gentlemen who were all diagnosed at the age of "fifty something". All had surgery for their prostate cancer. All were confined to the organ and had gleason scores of 6 and 7 before and after surgery. These surgerys took place between 15 to 20 years ago and they are still doing fine with no dectible PSA.
I would like to know what ages are considered "young age"? I am sure forty's falls in that catagory, but what beyond that?
There is no real defintion of "young age" as far as PCa is concerned.
If we look at the statistical profiles we know that the median age for diagnosis used to be in the mid seventies and is now in the mid sixties. So anyone younger than about 63 would be on the 'young' side of the divide.
In 1996 when I was diagnosed at the age of 54 I was said to be 'young', probably because my age was 20 years less than the median. Using the same argument now would produce a 'young' age of mid-forties.
But, as I say, there is no definition that I know of - hardly surprising, since there is very little agreement on any issue involving this disease.