HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Ben Stiller

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic locked
1 2
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 10/5/2016 4:25 AM (GMT 0)
I sense a new topic for you, Sheepguy:

Is PC tx. ickier than BC tx?

Mel (who doesn't care)
Posted 10/5/2016 8:39 AM (GMT 0)
Just saw the story reported on the BBC
www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37551842/hollywood-actor-ben-stiller-reveals-he-had-prostate-cancer-but-is-now-cancer-free

This report, like others, doesn't give anything much in the way of info about treatment his data or the consequences of his treatment and thus gives the reader the impression that PCa is easily dealt with! Sadly this may continue to spread the false idea that PCa is no big deal.

That said, like me he seems to have caught his PCa thank to a lucky break thanks to having a PSA test done when under 50 and which was only done to get a baseline.

Hope he stays in the zero club!!

Alf
Posted 10/5/2016 11:55 AM (GMT 0)
From what his article did say, we can possibly infer a few things...

1. He was treated at JH, so we can infer that Epstein's team did his pathology.
2. Also, since he was treated at JH, we can likely infer that he did receive AS information. Depending on how many positive cores he had at at 3+4, and their location, he might not have been eligible for the JH AS program--I seem to recall that JH is pretty restrictive about that sort of thing.

Kudos for him for going public. That can only help. Let's not criticize his treatment choice based on incomplete information.
Posted 10/5/2016 3:18 PM (GMT 0)
Sheepguy,

My observation (not scientific) is that men have a harder time talking about this stuff than women do. Women openly will discuss their breast cancer treatment, mastectomies, the hardships of radiation and chemo, and how they feel about losing (sometimes) a part of what makes them feel feminine. Most of the men I've come into contact with will cut and run rather than discuss the problems associated with treatment. I've often wondered why cancers that are more associated with men (lung, prostate) seem to get less press. Could it be that women are more willing to talk about it?

Either way, I'm always glad to see the well known talking about the subject.

Donna
Posted 10/5/2016 3:19 PM (GMT 0)
The guys I feel sorry for are those who are being treated by docs who are out of date/out of touch with current reality and guys who are uninformed patients - unable to discern when their old doc is good enough or not. I'd bet that many of these patients are over-treated with everyone's best efforts at cure, whether or not it is needed.

IMHO, if you can't be a well-informed self-advocate, it is better to not be a patient at all.

BTW, Donna, I think you've hit on an important point. Psychologists have found that guys typically don't discuss their medical issues and conditions, other than small talk. That may explain the relative lack of substantive press on these matters.
Posted 10/5/2016 3:28 PM (GMT 0)

halbert said...
From what his article did say, we can possibly infer a few things...

1. He was treated at JH, so we can infer that Epstein's team did his pathology.
2. Also, since he was treated at JH, we can likely infer that he did receive AS information. Depending on how many positive cores he had at at 3+4, and their location, he might not have been eligible for the JH AS program--I seem to recall that JH is pretty restrictive about that sort of thing.

Kudos for him for going public. That can only help. Let's not criticize his treatment choice based on incomplete information.



Stiller's surgeon was Dr. Edward M. Schaeffer, chair of urology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Medicine. Northwestern is also home to Dr. William Catalona, and has a reputation for "cut-first," and ask questions later.
Posted 10/5/2016 7:51 PM (GMT 0)
JackH,
That is quite an indictment against Northwestern. Do you have a source for the "reputation" information, or is it just part of your anti-surgery diatribe?
Posted 10/5/2016 7:54 PM (GMT 0)
A reputation is "earned." And it's not an anti-surgery diatribe. It's an anti-overtreatment diatribe. Get it straight.
Posted 10/5/2016 7:59 PM (GMT 0)
I'll take that as a "no". Once again you can not back up what you say.
Posted 10/5/2016 8:28 PM (GMT 0)
A reputation is observational, and not a proven fact from a randomized control trial. An observational study draws inferences from a sample to a population where the independent variable is not controlled. Dr. Catalona, the figurehead at NMH Urology, is a clear champion of overtreatment and pusher for mass PSA screening (which today is seen as unethical) as it helps defend his crumbling scientific reputation.
Posted 10/5/2016 9:27 PM (GMT 0)
Not the main topic, but gotta' say...

Prostrate cancer to breast cancer comparison is not a real comparison. Both men & women can get BC, and both are treated similarly.

Now comparing prostrate cancer to uterine cancer or cervical cancer, sure. Uterine and cervical cancers are not very talked about, and the treatment options compare more similarly.
Posted 10/5/2016 9:51 PM (GMT 0)
Two quick observations. First, i'm surprised a forum moderator would call it "prostrate" cancer. Typo? Auto correct?

Second, a person's reputation is a subjective belief or opinion made about an individual. Donald Trump's reputation is not good among Democrats, and Hillary Clinton's is not good among Republicans, yet each candidate's supporters think highly of them These are subjective judgments, and everyone involved can cite "facts" to support their opinions. I thought it was forum policy to speak no ill of a particular physician, but the rules also seem variable and often better observed by some than by others.

Post Edited (clocknut) : 10/5/2016 3:58:41 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 10/5/2016 9:51 PM (GMT 0)

Lynnwood said...
Not the main topic, but gotta' say...

Prostrate cancer to breast cancer comparison is not a real comparison. Both men & women can get BC, and both are treated similarly.

Now comparing prostrate cancer to uterine cancer or cervical cancer, sure. Uterine and cervical cancers are not very talked about, and the treatment options compare more similarly.


Let's start with this: prostate, not prostrate
Posted 10/5/2016 10:07 PM (GMT 0)

JackH said...
Stiller's surgeon was Dr. Edward M. Schaeffer, chair of urology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Medicine. Northwestern is also home to Dr. William Catalona, and has a reputation for "cut-first," and ask questions later.

Dr. Schaeffer was still at Johns Hopkins at the time Stiller was treated.
Posted 10/5/2016 10:19 PM (GMT 0)
Good grief, people, moderators are people, too, and we make mistakes, and I don't moderate this forum. There is no spelling test to moderate, and I never claimed to win any spelling bees. In fact, I was sick when they did phonetics in second grade, and have always had to be super-diligent about my spelling, 'cause I really can't spell. And I imagine some of you can't dance.
Posted 10/5/2016 10:32 PM (GMT 0)
I'm an awesome dancer...as long as I don't get up from my wheelchair
Posted 10/5/2016 10:37 PM (GMT 0)
You're right, Lynnwood. I apologize. I shouldn't get excited about the "prostrate" misspelling, but for some reason I do. I appreciate what you Mods do, and your comment in that post was very insightful.

I think I let myself get ticked off by seeing yet another thread twisted into an anti-treatment diatribe. Or by seeing armchair "uros" second guessing doctors of stature, such as Dr. Catalona and accusing them of the deliberate overtreatment of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Again, I apologize.
Posted 10/5/2016 10:46 PM (GMT 0)
Anti-overtreatment, not anti-surgery or anti-treatment. Can't you keep diatribes straight, or do you not understand the difference?
Posted 10/5/2016 10:57 PM (GMT 0)
I think I'll stick with "anti-treatment." Thanks anyway. And I do understand the difference. And I do understand rudeness and lack of civility.

What I don't understand is what burr you have under your saddle that makes you so darned contrary. I don't understand why, to the best of my knowledge, you've never shared your treatment history as the rest us have done, and continue to do. Maybe that would help us understand your obsession with overtreatment.

I don't understand why you would even remotely feel justified in passing judgment on Ben Stiller's decision, or any other man's decision, until you've walked one step in their shoes, or why you think you're in any position to determine whether the treatment decision reached by a man and his urologist is "right" or "wrong." Or why you think you're smarter than Dr. Catalona. Those are things I admittedly do not understand.
Posted 10/5/2016 11:06 PM (GMT 0)
Clueless
Posted 10/5/2016 11:14 PM (GMT 0)

Lynnwood said...

Prostrate cancer to breast cancer comparison is not a real comparison. Both men & women can get BC, and both are treated similarly.

.

Yep. I do know a guy who unfortunately died from it.
Posted 10/5/2016 11:45 PM (GMT 0)
Good for Stiller.
Posted 10/5/2016 11:58 PM (GMT 0)
JackH,

I agree with you .... you are clueless.
Posted 10/6/2016 12:55 AM (GMT 0)

MDNative said...

JackH said...
Stiller's surgeon was Dr. Edward M. Schaeffer, chair of urology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Medicine. Northwestern is also home to Dr. William Catalona, and has a reputation for "cut-first," and ask questions later.

Dr. Schaeffer was still at Johns Hopkins at the time Stiller was treated.

Correct. Stiller was treated during the summer of 2014. Schaeffer did not go to NW till December of 2015. So my earlier inference continues.

Mr. Stiller most likely DID have his pathology done by Epstein. And, depending on how much G7 he had, he might not have qualified for the JH AS program.
Posted 10/6/2016 1:08 AM (GMT 0)
OK...there are enough Rule 3 violations to make editing a chore...so let's just close this one and move on.

Jim
✚ New Topic locked
12