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're absolutely right that there ARE changes in attitude among many of the enlightened doctors, but interestingly, there was a report recently that implied that the number of men choosing AS was dropping, not increasing, despite the evidence accumulating regarding the prevlence of Low Risk or indolent disease.
One thing that DOES bother me a little is that where a Gleason 6 was clearly likely to be a Low Risk disease, the 'migration' of Gleason Scores, which started in 2005 is ikely to continue, so there will, over time be more an more men with graded higher Gleason Scores than they would have in the past, thus making them ineligible for AS.
In passing I wondered what change in a PSA level would trigger a saturation biopsy in your expert's protocol? Given the variances possible in PSA scores, I'd hope it was a very clear and continous increase that triggered this dratsic move.
