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: Johns Hopkins Article Supporting RP over AS GUILTY of its own Flaws (Omissions)
Hi Alan -
Yes, there are certainly opposing views on study results and treatments.
If I were low risk either watchful waiting or active surveillance would probably be at the top of my list.
As for myself, a Gleason 8, with high a volume disease, I figure my odds are approximately 7%-8% better surviving this disease with RP that I am having in May.
Is the anticipated edge worth the quality of life issues with RP? I say yes, but that is an individual decision.
Re: Johns Hopkins Article Supporting RP over AS GUILTY of its own Flaws (Omissions)
WOW! Boys, I am truly confused by all the "facts". I must not be smart enough to gain any conclusions from all this. To me, it is just a bunch of studies that really mean nothing to me as do much of the "facts and figures" gathered on this subject and presented as statistics. Statistics are notorious for being slanted, confusing, and inaccurate. In the case of PC, there are just too many variables to come up with anything more than a bunch of paperwork. Certainly nothing solid I would want to base my future on. It is probably why even the experts shrink away when you ask them their opinion is as to what course you should take. They know better than to commit to an unknown. They don't want that responsibility. Please don't misunderstand - I am not being sarcastic or critical. These studies are just doing their best to answer questions that we all wonder about in this grey and uncharted PC arena. These things are good to study and try to comprehend but must be considered with much precaution. I find the personal stories on this site to be as good a guide as anything in trying to find trends that might co-inside with one's own situation.
This site is a good source of information, including the article we are discussing here. It is (the site) a great help to many of us, giving us a way to communicate back and forth and share feelings and thoughts. I have really said very little here and wonder if I should even post this. I hope my words haven't "stepped on any toes" as I sure didn't mean to do that. Jon R.
Re: Johns Hopkins Article Supporting RP over AS GUILTY of its own Flaws (Omissions)
Alan,
Your analysis is spot on. I can only add that with the advent of the 3T-MP-MRI and fusion biopsy a man can safely choose AS and be 95% certain they sampled the highest risk tumor in his prostate.
Bobby,
I have no quarrel with your choice for RP with a gleason 8 tumor. As I am sure you are aware, your tumor would be considered high risk and therefore you would not qualify for AS.
