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 can always find the discussions (and others involving John or any of the other contributors) by simply clicking on their name where it is underlined in the Forum. That will list all posts made by that person and you can click on any of them to access their wise words.<<<<
I had forgotten that great feature, one of many on this forum. The spellcheck is welcome. I get a kick out the fact that the following, as with all spellchecks, would get by, even though "it's" is misused: The dog turned it's head.
Just a case of minor grammatical misinformation. :-)
>>>>You can always find the discussions (and others involving John or any of the other contributors) by simply clicking on their name where it is underlined in the Forum. That will list all posts made by that person and you can click on any of them to access their wise words.<<<<
I had forgotten that great feature, one of many on this forum. The spellcheck is welcome. I get a kick out the fact that the following, as with all spellchecks, would get by, even though "it's" is misused: The dog turned it's head.
I am being treated by the prostate-specialist team at Guys and St Thomas's hospital in London. This is one of the places that's involved with the latest developments in this field. I'm 49, and I was diagnosed a couple of years ago. Because of what was found from biopses and other investigative work the team felt that Active Surveillance (AS) was a perfectly sensible option to discuss. I'm tested regularly (which is what 'active surveillance' implies), and if/when the situation changes we'll revisit the options and make a decision then.
Point to note: current expert thinking, by leaders in the field, is that physical intervention is NOT automatically a must in anyone with this disease who's not at retirement age.
This doesn't mean that AS is right for every incidence of prostate cancer. But it DOES mean that AS is not automatically WRONG just because someone's the sunny side of 70.
It's something that should be discussed with medical experts who've reviewed your details, and remember that this cancer is typically less lethargic in younger sufferers than older guys; if you're diagnosed after 70 the odds are high that you'll die of something else.
Me, I'm under 50. But world-class experts in this field have said they're very happy to suggest AS to me as a sensible option among other choices, and they were very happy to support me in choosing AS. All the intervention methods carry various forms and levels of risk, many of which can be significantly life-altering. If they're needed, they're needed. But I was told that there has been as much as 50% over-treatment of this disease. I'll keep watching and cross that bridge when it seems more necessary.
