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.
Would you please send a private e-mail message to me at "firstname.lastname@example.org", so I can send you the Excel spreadsheet as an attachment? I'm sure we are all very interested to see the results of your analysis. Of course, we must keep in mind that the 1384 stories on YANA represent an extremely small sample compared to the total number of men worldwide who have been diagnosed with Prostate Cancer.
Irvine, California (USA)
Fred you raise some very valid discussion points. Could you give me that authors names, date of publication and name of journal? If you have a direct link to the paper even better. I will have a look and give you my thoughts.
Parhaps Mark may care to move your post into a new thread and we can chew the fat over the issue of Rx or otherwise for men with ten years, or less, life expectancy. It would make an interesting topic.
Please have those on AS read my journey. It reflects the YANA statistics discussed here. My story is in the 'Survivor Stories'. This is my last post.
My URO called. The biopsy of the lesion was negative. There is no cancer detected in my prostate as far as the T3 MRI can find. The lesion was most probably scar tissue from the TURP I had three years ago. My URO said that the TURP probably took out any Gleason 6 in that area – or whatever that was. (Sorry to be snarky - but it's been a frustrating experience)
Will now do a regular 6-month PSA check. As I've reported before, my PSA has never been over 1.0
Though my PC experience pales in comparison to the men here, my experience could act as an object lesson of this lousy disease and the many different ways the PSA could change based on one's individual prostate. Perhaps my experience and the path I took to track my Gleason 6 can spare some men and their family of the worrisome anxiety and wondering if you were doing the right thing on AS with a low level disease that we seem to know little about.
From initial diagnosis of PC after my TURP and the first URO ready to take it out, to the three year journey of PSA scores going up then down because of my health history that had nothing to do with PC, to using my research and finding the latest technology to put my mind finally at rest.
LESSON – you are your own doctor in this disease. Do your own studies and find the best care possible. If you find yourself in my PC position and would like to talk, please feel free to contact me.
Signing off until my periodic PSA tests gives me a red flag. All my best to the courageous men here.
First, Don, in answer to your question about whose thesis I believe John's analysis supports, I would have to say that, even here, the stats show AS in a favorable light (with even John saying: "So for low risk PCa, our typical AS warrior is on a winner"). That being said, there are not enough men involved in this analysis for the findings to be of any significance. However, it matters not because the large cohorts, like the one posted by Brian Watts, clearly show that AS is an effective strategy for low risk patients yielding outcomes similar to men who underwent immediate treatment. Think about it. As Fred said, there are no large U.S. medical institutions that restrict their AS protocol to older men that are not expected to live 10 more years. So, clearly in the minds of the medical professionals in the know at these medical centers around the country, the scientific evidence on AS has been convincing enough for them to adopt these programs for men with a life expectancy of greater than 10 years. In fact, as I stated earlier, Dr. Patrick Walsh of Johns Hopkins (an highly respected RP surgeon, interestingly enough) does not believe that these men who will likely die in the next decade should even practice AS at all, in the sense of intervening with curative intent if there are signs of progression. Rather, he just recommends observation and points out that these men should not even have had a biopsy in the first place.
Now, on a related note, I would like to thank Fred for the not unexpected, but still disturbing, information on overtreatment released by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. If there is a positive note in that post, it is the fact that 20% are practicing AS when it wasn't so long ago that, nationally, it was 10%. Slow progress to be sure, with a long, long way to go, but progress just the same. That being said, the number of men with less than 10 years of life expectancy left that are receiving treatment is absolutely shameful and highlights better than any other example I've read of just how absurdly wrong things are in the PCa medical community. It makes me wonder where the disconnect is. That is, we have the major medical institutions mentioned above showing forward thinking by instituting their AS programs, and then you have this black mark on the PCa medical profession. Personally, I believe that the problem lies in the local urologists’ offices and the many run-of-the-mill hospitals and medical centers around the country. It's hard not to be cynical when you read of such data, and with that in mind, it is my opinion that this problem is due to these local doctors and medical institutions being either set in their old-school ways, ignorant (in the sense of not keeping up with the changing times) and/or greedy (since the treatment of PCa is certainly a highly profitable enterprise). Such a long way to go…Sigh!
Lastly, Don, in response to your comment about you not looking for John and I to "re-engage", I have this to say in the vernacular of the good people of Australia (where John resides): "No Worries"… it is not going to happen.
The use of the term "no worries" is a very interesting phenomenon. It is used by Aussies to cover almost every situation, regardless of the circumstances, and regardless of the true extent and nature of the worry. There doesn't have to be an absence of worry for "no worries" to be used. In fact, it is common for "no worries" to be used in the most worrisome of situations.
I just have a simple question or two and likely missed it somewhere along this on-going discussion (which I am not sure the end-game point is); i.e., how does anyone know if they are low risk based on the randomness of biopsies? I have heard that the only way to know full pathology is to examine the gland after it has been reviewed?
Please refer to John Bonneville's response on " some further clarification" dated Dec 27 @ 7:59pm. He does a good job describing an AS monitoring protocol. If you had a high grade tumor that was missed by a needle biopsy and started to grow, your PSA , and imaging testing would catch it.
If you are asking what the end game is in this AS debate, IMO it is recognition, respect, acceptance and implementation among the PCa medical community at large, reflecting the fact that this strategy has proven itself to be a viable option for those that meet the criteria. Until that happens, we are going to continue to have a serious over-treatment problem worldwide.