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.
Just on pathology alone there are 18 variant types of PCa they are not all the same categorically. Then within DNA pathology you have polidy test that can reveal which type of 3 polidities you might have, the first one resembles closer to normal cells and is better suited for hormone manipulations. The second and especially the third type of ploidity are said to be less controlled via hormone therapies, therefore should be probably considered a higher risks or prognostic consideration. Ploidity testing might cost $350-500 additional in pathology lab work, insurance might cover it.
This goes perhaps a little along with this thread but not the same message.
1. There is a "suggestion" that the measurement of sarcosine MIGHT aid in diagnosis HHMI investigator Arul Chinnaiyan and colleagues at the University of Michigan showed that as prostate cancer develops and progresses, sarcosine levels increase in both tumor cells and urine samples, suggesting that measurements of the metabolite could aid in non-invasively diagnosing the disease. Researchers might also be able to inhibit prostate cancer's spread by designing drugs that manipulate the sarcosine pathway.
2. Then there is this statement "This is proof-of-principle that we can identify metabolites, or panels of metabolites, that might be correlated with aggressive prostate cancer versus slower-growing prostate cancer," Chinnaiyan said. that again uses the 'might' word.
3. After that comes this The results suggest that drugs that alter sarcosine metabolism might be useful in treating prostate cancer, but Chinnaiyan cautions that these Petri-dish findings still need further validation in animal models. another suggestion that altering sarcosine 'might' be useful - but it is a loooong way from mice to men, let alone from petri dishes to men.
4. And finally For reliable diagnosis of aggressive disease, he said, "we need to have panels, not just rely on a single metabolite."
The Time report that Ron Hoffman linked to in his post is a bit more accurate in that it quotes the reaearchers clearly indicating that this is a possibility, no where near a certainty.
All of which doesn't, to me, justify the headline or opening paragraph in the BBC report:
New Prostate Cancer Marker In Urine Indicates Whether Cancer Is Spreading
ScienceDaily (Feb. 12, 2009) — Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers have identified a new biological marker present in the urine of patients with prostate cancer that indicates whether the cancer is progressing and spreading.
But then maybe that's because I've see this all before.
