Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Cancer Society urges docs about limitations of screening test for prostate cancer
cleaveland.com ^ | March 03, 2010, 2:15PM | Associated Press health & medical staff

Posted on 03/05/2010 8:57:34 PM PST by FreeReign

ATLANTA — The American Cancer Society is urging doctors to make clearer to men that the test used to screen for prostate cancer has limits and may lead to unnecessary treatments that do more harm than good.

The cancer society has not recommended routine screening for most men since the mid-1990s, and that is not changing. But its new advice goes farther to warn of the limitations of the PSA blood test that millions of American men get now. It also says digital rectal exams should be an option rather than part of a standard screening.

(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: prostatecancer

1 posted on 03/05/2010 8:57:35 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FreeReign
"The American Cancer Society is urging doctors to make clearer to men that the test used to screen for prostate cancer has limits and may lead to unnecessary treatments that do more harm than good."

Did they get bought off or strong armed? You don't change your opinion that drastically unless one of the former occurred.

2 posted on 03/05/2010 9:05:20 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more?
Except in some government bureaucrat’s mind?


3 posted on 03/05/2010 9:07:30 PM PST by Redbob (Pray for Pres.Osamabama: Psalm 109;v.7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more?
Except in some government bureaucrat’s mind?


4 posted on 03/05/2010 9:09:12 PM PST by Redbob (Pray for Pres.Osamabama: Psalm 109;v.7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

A rectal exam isn’t an expensive test, what the heck?


5 posted on 03/05/2010 9:10:41 PM PST by libbylu ( Palin begins from Wasilla not only a campaign, an Iditarod of a crusade ....YEAH!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more? Except in some government bureaucrat’s mind?

Amazing, isn't it.

6 posted on 03/05/2010 9:13:12 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

MOST prostate cancers are slow growing.

A huge percentage of men would die of other natural causes before any serious complications from the prostate cancer developed.

However, my Blood Dad almost died from prostate cancer and is incontinent because of it, now.

SOME prostate cancers are fast growing.

Supposedly 100% of men past a certain age who have been autopsied have had some form and degree of prostate cancer.

IIRC


7 posted on 03/05/2010 9:14:49 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: libbylu
"A rectal exam isn’t an expensive test, what the heck?"

Agreed but it sure isn't fun. A quick finger sure doesn't cost much.

8 posted on 03/05/2010 9:15:03 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

I do not have Prostate Cancer, thank God, but my Doc decided I needed to have an extensive prostate procedure. I don’t know what instrument they used, but I know one thing....I know why I’m not gay.


9 posted on 03/05/2010 9:15:55 PM PST by no dems (Palin / Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libbylu

“A rectal exam isn’t an expensive test, what the heck?”

What I think they are saying is that testing for PSA levels often indicates trouble where there is none and expensive and unnecessary treatment will be applied.

The digital rectal exam is more accurate.


10 posted on 03/05/2010 9:16:00 PM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

I smell a rat....Early detection is critical so the recommendation to not even inspect the prostate, umm, ‘manually’ makes zero sense.


11 posted on 03/05/2010 9:16:06 PM PST by ATLDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

The head of the organization must be auditioning for one of Obama’s death panels.


12 posted on 03/05/2010 9:19:48 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix
"MOST prostate cancers are slow growing."

So your point is we don't screen for them? Fast or slow you can't treat them if you don't know they exist.

13 posted on 03/05/2010 9:20:51 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: libbylu
A rectal exam isn’t an expensive test, what the heck?

Strange isn't it.

PSA tests aren't a great test for prostate cancer and men with prostate cancer should understand the down side to having surgery. All that said, the ACS downplaying simple inexpensive digital examinations, is irresponsible.

If you ask me, this ACS recommendation has Death Panel Obama's digit prints all over it.

14 posted on 03/05/2010 9:22:22 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Well...my husband doesn’t get a choice with this. His father is a prostate cancer survivor and so the urologist says he gets to be screened earlier. My father-in-law’s prostate cancer was discovered through PSA tests. They were able to catch it in the earliest stage, fortunately.


15 posted on 03/05/2010 9:26:14 PM PST by TNdandelion (Obama: From redistribution of wealth to redistribution of health-this commie's got you covered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

Seems to me like routine digital exams are essential.

I still get the PSA test . . .

I don’t think the rush to surgery for slow growing is always wise.

Certainly, I’m for knowing accurately.

PSA is notoriously inaccurate.


16 posted on 03/05/2010 9:26:29 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Quix
"I still get the PSA test . . ."

If you think it of little value then why do you bother to do it?

17 posted on 03/05/2010 9:30:38 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more?

The issue is actually quite complicated. Dr Thomas Stamey was the doctor who in 1981 wrote up the medical paper that declared that PSA was a good marker for prostate cancer. In 2004, after looking at the data from the intervening years, he declared that while PSA was an indicator of prostate health (and specifically a condition called BPH)it was not a good marker for prostate cancer (this was written up in the New England Journal of Medicine in July, 2004). In other words, Dr Stamey essentially refuted his own study.

18 posted on 03/05/2010 9:31:27 PM PST by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... (“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”....Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223

It is one piece of data.

It can point to closer examination . . . perhaps even a biopsy.

I don’t consider it someting to go crazy over.

And, it’s just part of the routine blood screen that the VA does yearly.


19 posted on 03/05/2010 9:35:36 PM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Otis Webb Brawley, M.D is Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society and appears to be auditioning for Obama’s death panel.


20 posted on 03/05/2010 9:35:49 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign


Dr. Otis Brawley, Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society
21 posted on 03/05/2010 9:38:39 PM PST by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
So your point is we don't screen for them? Fast or slow you can't treat them if you don't know they exist.

As pointed out in Post 18, the issue is quite complicated. I don't think I could lay my fingers on it right now but I remember an article posted here on FR about a research study which looked at the prostates of teenage boys that had been killed in accidents. It turned out that something like 25% of them were found to have cancer. So... if you are a guy, you say "now what"? There are a few points that are difficult to rationalize so that a reasonable decision can be made: 1. Virtually all men age 50 or so likely have prostate cancer cells, 2. It is well known to be so slow growing that something else will likely kill you first, 3. A screening test such as a multi-point biopsy (grid of 16 samples) will actually do harm to the prostate, 4. That same screening test may actually miss the cancer cells.

So with the four above points in mind, what is a reasonable course of action for a man of age 50? No easy choices there, let me tell you.

22 posted on 03/05/2010 9:46:15 PM PST by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... (“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”....Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE

My doctor performs both when I have my physical.


23 posted on 03/05/2010 9:47:35 PM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or are you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

When the false positive rate is too high and the cost of false positives increases, testing recommendations should change.


24 posted on 03/05/2010 9:48:34 PM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
So with the four above points in mind, what is a reasonable course of action for a man of age 50? No easy choices there, let me tell you.

Certainly, the following recommendation is not a good one.


25 posted on 03/05/2010 9:50:34 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...
"So with the four above points in mind, what is a reasonable course of action for a man of age 50? No easy choices there, let me tell you."

I'm pushing sixty. I get the PSA test every six months. The finger as well. I don't like either. But if it avoids a problem then I will put up with both. And what is the harm from taking the tests. Hell, if Obama gets his way this will be moot anyway.

26 posted on 03/05/2010 9:58:19 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

I wouldn’t trust him for any reason.


27 posted on 03/05/2010 10:01:14 PM PST by blackbart.223 (I live in Northern Nevada. Reid doesn't represent me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123
Dr. Brawley is a graduate of University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine.
28 posted on 03/05/2010 10:05:50 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Redbob
Since when does less screening for cancer become a better idea than more?

When you get the study results showing that it's saving one life out of 48, while subjecting the other 47 to the side effects of treatment. The big problem is that there's currently no way to tell the difference between the tumors you can leave alone and those that are going to become aggressive.

29 posted on 03/05/2010 10:38:49 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Quix

It’s in the 90’s, and so’s the percentage.


30 posted on 03/05/2010 10:40:20 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.


31 posted on 03/05/2010 10:40:42 PM PST by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.


32 posted on 03/05/2010 10:40:59 PM PST by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence). He stated (restated)that a physician’s first duty is to do no harm. That he takes seriously his Hippocratic oath is why I find him to be an outstanding physician.
I have to say that I have been fortunate to have selected or been recommended to an outstanding group of physicians and dentists who have as their first principle to care for their patients. I seriously doubt that we would have that under obamacare.


33 posted on 03/05/2010 10:41:20 PM PST by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit

I apologize for the triple post.


34 posted on 03/05/2010 10:43:04 PM PST by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit

I agree with your entire post except the Hippocratic oath reference. “First, do no harm” isn’t in there. It was part of his teachings, though, and it’s even cited in the ACS paper the article is based on.


35 posted on 03/05/2010 10:49:21 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit
I agree. My own GP (Internist and Hemotologist) told me, after I tested at a low PSA number, that he doesn’t do the PSA test on himself. He said that with the tendency for false positives doctors could possibly be subjecting their patients to treatments with debilitating side effects (incontinence/impotence).

One isn't subject to (incontinence/impotence) from a false positive PSA. One could be subject to a biopsy from a false positive PSA, but biopsies don't lead to incontinence and impotence, and it's always the patients choice anyway not to get a biopsy.

36 posted on 03/05/2010 10:58:19 PM PST by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: All

For those interested, here’s the full paper.

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/caac.20066v1


37 posted on 03/05/2010 11:39:08 PM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit
"I apologize for the triple post."

Only once??? ;>)

38 posted on 03/06/2010 4:38:24 AM PST by DJ Frisat (How's that change workin' out for ya, Obama voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
Thanks for posting the link to the full paper. I just read through much of it and found it to be quite interesting. As I said in an earlier comment, it's actually a fairly complicated issue as far as how any of the information can be used to help one base a decision.

It appears that the mandate of the study was to just examine the issue of 'screening'. What the report does not do is get into the topic of health alternatives and other related aspects of prostate health.... Things such as foods which men should stay away because of accelerating or aggravating the condition, dietary supplements that men should take, activities that could be related to the frequency of problems or ways of alleviating/delaying the problem, an analysis of all the treatment measures for those men for whom the problems is so serious that it must be dealt with etc. This reporting just deals with the screening issue and the other issues were not examined. I think that most men would at least like to have good information on some of these other issues as well. If for example all one had to do was increase the amount of a particular vitamin to increase the odds that the problem never arises at all, I think most men would want to know that.

39 posted on 03/06/2010 6:44:24 AM PST by Asfarastheeastisfromthewest... (“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”....Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

More obamacare, before it goes into effect!

It ain’t dead until congress is recessed and we flip at least 1 in Nov, or we will be fighting this battle for 3 more years!

OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy
Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.

Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security, http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html

Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts

Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/28/obama.health.care/index.html

Will healthcare reform mean cuts in Medicare for seniors?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1017/will-healthcare-reform-mean-cuts-in-medicare-for-seniors

Health Reform’s Hidden Victims Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html

SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2464538/posts

MILITARY & Retired MILITARY
Veterans’ G.I. Bill benefits MIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464680/posts
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.

The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.


40 posted on 03/06/2010 7:23:44 AM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

Obamacare call list: Courtsey of TN Eagle Forum:

PLEASE CALL! DC OFFICE LOCAL OFFICE State District
Harry Mitchell (202) 225-2190 (480) 946-2411 AZ 5th District
Gabrielle Giffords (202) 225-2542 (520) 881-3588 AZ 8th District
Ann Kirkpatrick (202) 225-2315 (928) 226-6914 AZ 1st District
Jerry McNerney (202) 225-1947 925-833-0643 CA 11th District
John Salazar 202-225-4761 970-245-7107 CO 3rd District
Jim Himes (202) 225-5541 (866) 453-0028 CT 4th District
Alan Grayson (202) 225-2176 (407) 841-1757 FL 8th District
Bill Foster (202) 225-2976 630-406-1114 IL 14th District
Baron Hill 202 225 5315 812 288 3999 IN 9th District
Mark Schauer (202) 225-6276 (517) 780-9075 MI 7th District
Gary Peters (202) 225-5802 (248) 273-4227 MI 9th District
Dina Titus (202) 225-3252 702-256-DINA (3462) NV 3rd District
Carol Shea-Porter (202) 225-5456 (603) 743-4813 NH 1st District
Tim Bishop (202) 225-3826 (631) 696-6500 NY 1st District
John Hall (202) 225-5441 (845) 225-3641 x49371 NY 19th District
Bill Owens (202) 225-4611 (315) 782-3150 NY 23rd District
Mike Arcuri (202)225-3665 (315)793-8146 NY 24th District
Dan Maffei (202) 225-3701 (315) 423-5657 NY 25th District
Earl Pomeroy (202) 225-2611 (701) 224-0355 ND At-Large District
Steven Driehaus (202) 225-2216 (513) 684-2723 OH 1st District
Mary Jo Kilroy (202) 225-2015 (614) 294-2196 OH 15th District
Zach Space (202) 225-6265 (330) 364-4300 OH 18th District
Kathy Dahlkemper (202) 225-5406 (814) 456-2038 PA 3rd District
Patrick Murphy (202) 225-4276 (215) 826-1963 PA 8th District
Christopher Carney (202) 225-3731 (570) 585-9988 PA 10th District
Paul Kanjorski (202) 225-6511 (570) 825-2200 PA 11th District
John Spratt (202) 225-5501 (803)327-1114 SC 5th District
Tom Perriello (202) 225-4711 (276) 656-2291 VA 5th District
Alan Mollohan (202) 225-4172 (304) 623-4422 WVA 1st District
Nick Rahall (202) 225-3452 (304) 252-5000 WVA 3rd District
Steve Kagen (202) 225-5665 (920) 437-1954 WI 8th District
Bart Gordon (202) 225-4231 TN
Bart Stupak (202) 225 4735 MI


41 posted on 03/06/2010 7:24:24 AM PST by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

Please elaborate.

I’m not clear what specific percentages etc. you are referring to.

Sorry.


42 posted on 03/06/2010 7:26:55 AM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rex regnum insanit

I

AGREE
AGREE
AGREE.

LOL.

No sweat. Appreciate your kind post.

Congrats on your care.


43 posted on 03/06/2010 7:28:30 AM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: FreeReign

You’re right. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant to say that the PSA (as opposed to the digital exam) may turn up cancer that is slow growing and may be better subjected to “watchful waiting,” rather than surgery that may lead to the aforementioned complications. Although many will want the cancer out no matter what (and I would probably be one of them) some, especially those who are well past fifty, might want a more conservative approach.


44 posted on 03/06/2010 7:35:40 AM PST by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...

Yes, I agree. It’s a complex, multi-variant decision, and in large part the individual patient has to make it without several of the variables. The big breakthrough will be the development of some way to distinguish a slow growing tumor from an agressive one. Absent knowledge of that factor, the patient will always be making a decision in the dark.

There’s a tremendous amount of research on diet, prompted in large part by the disparate rate of prostate cancer in the US versus Japan. There’s been sort of an ongoing cycle of popularity for certain supplements, with them coming into favor then later studies finding them useless. One thing that seems to have a high correlation at the moment is red meat.

I think the evolving understanding about PC will be that it’s a natural disease of aging for those who practice certain lifestyles, among them being living in a “rich” society such as ours.


45 posted on 03/06/2010 10:31:53 AM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I’m sorry, that was a bit succinct. Referring to your comment about not being sure of the age of those autopsied, the usual discussion has to do with those in their nineties. The percentage of them found with prostate cancer is also in the nineties. You could say that the percentage of PC in the entire male population of the U.S. roughly tracks the age of the individuals. It goes undiscovered in most because it never presents symptoms. If you just arbitrarily biopsy people with ‘normal’ PSA’s, you’ll find a lot of it, most of which the patient would have been better off if you hadn’t found. Thus, the whole screening controversy.

Interestingly enough, the National Health Service in New Zealand a few years back did an extensive study of screening from the standpoint of public health, and reached a very similar conclusion to the current ACS paper. They no longer do routine PSA screenings because, on balance, the side effects of treating cancers that weren’t going to go anywhere had a greater negative impact than waiting for symptoms to present themselves. Which is, of course, all well and good from a public health standpoint, but not much use to the individual patient who’s trying to make a treatment decision.


46 posted on 03/06/2010 10:48:26 AM PST by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

INDEED.

THX MUCH.


47 posted on 03/06/2010 11:52:20 AM PST by Quix ( POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 TRAITORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson