Is Dr. Walsh's Book still worth looking at?

One size does not fit all.

Men newly diagnosed with low-risk PC would do far better to begin with your doctor's book (Scholz), "Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers."

Walsh's book has these pluses and minuses: 1) lots of good anatomical descriptions, 2) good details about surgery, and a definite slant towards surgery, 3) not much on other treatment modes, and especially new (SBRT, for example) modes simply because the book is drifting out-of-date, 4) decent detail on advanced cases, but again lacks up-to-date treatment drugs which are coming out all the time, 5) nothing meaningful on new imaging techniques (mpMRI, for example, which is emerging as a new "standard"), and 6) nothing informative about AS which is the fastest-growing mode.

I haven't recommended Walsh's book to anyone in at least the last 2 years.

Keep in mind that the majority of newly diagnosed cases are low-risk. Walsh's book is NOT a valuable choice for newly diagnosed low-risk cases.

Post Edited (JackH) : 12/3/2015 12:12:22 PM (GMT-7)

I kinda took the view "very useful primer, not terribly useful wrt treatment (today)".

a surgeon recommending surgery....let me think about that one.....hmmmm .

my feeling after being here a few years is surgery seldom should be the first choice, and I am grateful my uro thought surgery was a poor choice for me.

I have never read that book nor recommended it to anyone.

ed

I have about 8 books on prostate cancer and I found Dr. Walsh's Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer "Third Edition" is by far the best. Sure it is heavy towards the surgery side, but I found it still covered radiotherapy, hormonal better than the other books I have.

In my opinion it is a must have book for anyone dealing with prostate cancer.

I think that all published books on the subject are outdated by the time they're published. Walsh's last edition was in 2012, and there have been many advances since then. I think a much better resource is the search bar of prostatecancerinfolink.net - it's up-to-date, includes studies of importance, has patient-oriented commentaries, and it's free! (shameless plug).

Another good source of general info is NCI's website. It is fairly current, but lacks the kind of detail that sophisticated patients may be looking for. It's pretty good for the newly-diagnosed guy who wants an overview.

Pubmed searches can really get one into the weeds, but may be useful for very specific issues, if one knows how to interpret research.

- Allen

until these books and websites include a poetry section, I am not recommending any of them.

Andrew

A man who discovered the reality of the nerve bundles as they really are is not to be dismissed with the wave of a thought and put into the the dustbin of research. Walshes discoveries were real and definitive. to follow the logic of those whose faith is in studies, admittedly wrong by all that write them...as they are simply an argument ...yet to be proved.... is a disservice to facts and truth. If everything written is obsolete as soon as it is published then this is also true of studies...which always, always present the other as swift as the genitor of thouht. There is no "other" in Walshes findings of nerve bundles...it is fact and true... a rare commodity in a paradigm of paradox.. He is not alone in his quest for what is and what is not. He knows what he does not know and more importantly he know what he does know. Who amongst you can say the same.......... He is not a god, but merely a man....oh to be such...merely a man... honk honk

Compiler... do you have any idea how much you miss. Your 2 sentences to me in reply make zero sense to my post. you are not an unintelligent man.... Why would you choose a few accolades of cleverness over who you really are.. I don't get...I really don't. I will put you on ignore...your silliness depresses me. Bozo honk honk

As some political figure or other has observed, we each are entitled to our own opinions, however we don't each get to have our own facts. Facts are stubborn things. The most difficult of all human endeavors is to adjust our beliefs in the face of facts that contradict those beliefs.

Walsh (like other writers) is probably guilty of introducing a certain amount of opinion into his book, along with a lot of good, solid, factual information. The reader creates their own "book" as they read it. The sections that fit the reader's beliefs get re-read to reinforce whatever the reader wants to 'know', other sections get passed by because they contain information the reader would prefer to not know.

This particular book, I found, is full of good, basic information in a reasonably well written style that I found quite accessible. As a basic information source, it's pretty good. Of course it lacks information about some of the newer treatments out there...that's the nature of anything that is published. It's also true that many of the newer treatments aren't available to large swaths of the general population...so that lack is of academic, but not practical, interest.

We need to ask ourselves a basic question: Who is the intended audience of the book? It's the man (or the partner of the man) recently diagnosed, who is looking for something to settle him down, who is searching on Amazon for information. For that individual, it's good.

compiler said...
...I know online is the most up to date, but I think one would want to have an actual book handy!

I prefer on-line.

In something the size and little more than the weight of a magazine I can have everything in a book and much, much more available to me.

Different strokes for different folks.

halbert said...
It's also true that many of the newer treatments aren't available to large swaths of the general population...so that lack is of academic, but not practical, interest.

No. This statement is misinformed and is not even directionally correct.


You want the very best and the latest cancer care? You should go to one of the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. To be clear, there can be great care at some non-CCC facilities too, but the CCC sites are intensely focused delivering the best and latest in cancer care from the leading authorities in practice and research. Unquestionably.

NCI-designated Cancer Centers deliver cutting-edge cancer treatments to patients in communities ACROSS the United States—not only the "standards of care," which is synonymous with the best known & validated treatment plans, but also they have far greater access to the latest clinical trials (which also often extends to leveraging trial access to prescribe new treatments "off-label"). The 62 facilities are specifically and intentionally spread-out across the country to strategically provide the very broadest coverage to the largest number of US residents. Demographically, more than 50% of the US population lives IN one of the greater metropolitan areas served by at least one of the CCCs, and 80% live within a 100-mile radius of a CCC. To learn about the NCI sites, go to the sticky thread titled "Newly Diagnosed with PC - read this thread first" or go directly to: http://www.cancer.gov/research/nci-role/cancer-centers

I'm sorry, in this regard, if you live in Montana, North Dakota or South Dakota where is is a significant distance to one of the CCCs (look on the map of CCCs on the NCI website). These are probably very beautiful areas to live, but those 3 states—together—have less than 1% of the US population. It's probably a long way just to a grocery store for many in those states, too.

Furthermore, mpMRIs, which I specifically called-out as largely missing from Walsh's book, but have emerged this decade as an important diagnostic tool, are located across the country in growing numbers...including, halbert, right there in nearby St Louis, at the Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center at Washington University School of Medicine and Barnes-Jewish Hospital in St. Louis.

And lastly, the fastest growing PC treatment approach—Active Surveillance—which is applicable to the largest subset of newly diagnosed men (very low-risk, low-risk and favorable intermediate-risk men), can be done literally anywhere...some new protocols call for an every-other year mpMRI visit, which I will declare as within reach and not impractical for most...but even if it is not, AS has a long successful history even prior to the emergence of mpMRIs.

So, unquestionably, the opposite of the statement I quoted above is true. Great care with the latest in medical advancements IS available to large swaths of the US population. Choose wisely.

Post Edited (JackH) : 12/4/2015 11:05:28 AM (GMT-7)

I've been saying it's been dated for awhile now.