Prostate Cancer Survivors

 

YANA - YOU ARE NOT ALONE NOW

PROSTATE CANCER SUPPORT SITE

 

 

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.

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Comparison of Outcomes

I thought I might rant a bit about flawed medical studies. The flaw in this study is that the full effect of radiation treatment is not usually felt for 3 to 5 years so to do a study with an end point at 3 years doesn't seem to make sense.

Another one is the usefulness of the PSA testing studies. It usually takes about 12 years (but not always) before you die of prostate cancer so announcing that PSA testing has no benneficial effect after doing a ten year study wouldn't make sense.

Another is the circular logic found in some papers on the rate of PSA rise and how long before biochemical recurrence will occur.

I always wonder who is doing the peer review of some of these papers. You always have to read medical research papers with a grain of salt....I guess that is why my doctors always appear to roll their eyes when I start quoting the latest research paper.

RETURN TO HOME PAGE LINKS