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.
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.