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.
Dr Jonathan Oppenheimer, a leading US pathologist, has been proposing something along those lines for many years. He was one of the drivers to change the Gleason Grading so that Gleason Scores lower thsn 6 were no longer designated as 'cancer'. That of course had some unforseeen consequences as the Gleason Grades 'migrated' with GS 5 material being graded as GS 6 and so on up the grades.
Perhaps if this kind of approach could be adopted we'd avoid what Dr Christopher Logothetis, another PCa expert said (as quoted earlier in this thread) many years ago:
One of the problems with prostate cancer is definition. They label it as a cancer, and they force us all to behave in a way that introduces us to a cascade of events that sends us to very morbid therapy. It's sort of like once that cancer label is put on there we are obligated to behave in a certain way, and its driven by physician beliefs and patient beliefs and frequently they don't have anything to do with reality. [/url]
