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.
Re: AS: “Physician Cancer Management Profiles" (a Problem with the Study)
While I believe that "Physician Cancer Management Profiles" are a positive step, I see a problem with the study itself. It presupposes that primary care physicians (PCPs) are more enlightened and more open-minded than the urologists that they are referring patients to. I doubt that is the case, and I know that my PCP is certainly not. Now, Dr. Hoffman (the study author) does say that patients with low-risk PCa should take the initiative to ask whether they are candidates for observation, but that certainly does not guarantee an objective answer. If the PCP thinks like many of the urologists, then that doctor is likely to dissuade the patient from exercising that option (which is exactly what my PCP tried to do with me). So, I think the answer lies in somehow expanding the use of these profiles to include a PCPs stance on cancer treatment options in general and AS in particular. I am going to see if I can e-mail Dr. Hoffman and see what she has to say about it. If I get a reply, I will post it on the forum.
