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: Good News for Radical Prostatectomy Patients - Johns Hopkins Article
Bobby,
I don't disagree with your criticism of this trial, however the average age of men diagnosed with PC is around 65. There is a real problem with over treatment with this disease. Only 10% of men that qualify for AS actually choose it. With the improvement in MP-MRI and fusion biopsy a man can safely choose this option and not worry that a more significant tumor was missed by the biopsy. UCSF has had an AS program for over 10 years and has not had 1 death in this group.
I just want men to understand that they can safely choose AS and avoid the nasty side effects associated with surgey/radiation.
Re: Good News for Radical Prostatectomy Patients - Johns Hopkins Article
Hi Fred. I don't think there are any PC victims who haven't wondered "what if" as to whether they should treat or just watch - and hope. Who hasn't wondered if they had just left things alone if their life might have been normal and unstressed by the devastating effects of treatment? It is difficult to feel certain of any decision one makes in this arena. There are very few consistencies to go by. One is always weighing the unknowns of the disease (which might kill you - or not) against the known facts of treatment which are almost always on the negative side. I too have wondered if I might have been better off not even knowing of the presence of the disease and yet I have seen what the disease does to you when it is allowed to kill you. Early detection and treatment seems to hold the best chance of beating the disease but early treatment also means you have more years of enduring treatment side effects, and still you never know if it was worth it. What a mess huh! Jon.
