Wall Street Journal on Prostate Cancer

Hello All:

Here is a link to the first of a 2-part Wall Street Journal series on prostate cancer.  One highlight is the description of the mapping biopsy and TFT clinical trial which our own "realziggy" is in.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845699393571631.html

Tudpock

Tudpock18 said...
Hello All:


Here is a link to the first of a 2-part Wall Street Journal series on prostate cancer. One highlight is the description of the mapping biopsy and TFT clinical trial which our own "realziggy" is in.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123845699393571631.html



Tudpock

Yeah that's my doctor too. Go down th the second half then start reading "playing battleship" I'm one of the 200 who had 3D mapping and one of the 60 who experienced TFT. So I'm sort of kind of in an article of the Wall Street Journal..

Yeah I know how terrible an article. The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, The Washington Post and The New England Journal of Medicine are all irresponsible rags for publishing those results. Don't forget the AARP, and the American Cancer Society who need to be demonized too. It's a vast conspiracy I tell you. Wake up and smell the coffee people this ain't going away any time soon. Let's see how everyone feels a year from now. Will you recommend to your brother or best friend radical treatments if they come to you after a low risk PCa dx and ask for advice. I'm saying a year from now don't answer yet.

Diane, I also hope that Pete's recent rise is an abnormality and that the trend starts back down again.  I'll say a little prayer for that to happen..

Realziggy, I thought you would enjoy reading about your procedure in the WSJ.  I hope the results for you and the others in your clinical trial are outstanding.  It would be great to have another treatment choice that is verified. 

Also, realziggy, putting your sarcasm aside for the moment, I don't know if you caught a post I started last week wherein Dr. Ballentine Carter, head of adult urology at Johns Hopkins commented on the recent studies.  I won't repeat the whole post here but these were his conclusions:

Bottom line: What the studies point out is that right now we still don't have a one-size-fits-all type test. While Dr. Carter believes that the value of the PSA test is still debated, until we have a better biomarker test that can differentiate inconsequential from lethal tumors, the PSA test needs to be used more judiciously. "I think a lot of the overtreatment we see has to do with using PSA as an absolute cutoff. I think PSA velocity, how fast the PSA moves over time, may be a better measure of the presence of lethal cancer.

"Doctors can get a lot more information if there is a PSA history, which is why I believe getting a baseline PSA at a younger age is a reasonable thing to do.," says Dr. Carter. "I recommend that all men should have an initial PSA test starting at age 40. A follow-up test should be given at age 45 and then again at age 50. Combining that information with the patient's age, size of the gland, and the free PSA test, should improve the accuracy of the PSA test. This will indicate their risk of developing prostate cancer.

"While not precise, it offers the best indication we have so far about the presence of cancer and what should be done," he says.

This provides some needed balance and perpective on the issue IMHO.  And, Dr. Carter is no cutting fanatic...in fact, he runs the watchful waiting program for Hopkins.

Tudpock

First of all I'm not really all that much against PSA tests. I am against how they have been used. When there's high number or a rapid rise yes that should warrant further evaluation. But when its the majority of somewhat low numbers gleasons 6 and biopsy with few and low percentage of positive cores =low risk, it should not be a given to go to radical treatments. The truth is there have been a sizable number of doctors who believed PC was being over treated. I never heard of that until I finally went to my third urologist. Which was very eye opening when I realized along with Dr Barqawi who is the director of research at the University of Colorado Urologic Oncology Dept and the head Dr Crawford well respected firmly held that belief and were actively researching less invasive procedures to use if any be needed at all. Once again I must state this is for those with low risk PCa 55 and up, not those with advanced in thier 40s. There are far more of the former than the latter. I could've done what most here had a radical treatment. Then upon learning this recent news and learning radicals have been used as one doctor here was quoted more towards treating anxiety than cancer I would have been very irate. In time many men will become irate and have regret. That's too bad and I really do feel for them. It wasn't their fault they acted upon the information they had. Most did not know of the controversy. That said this can't be allowed to continue. All I am saying that upon dx or maybe with psa scores given to patient that all that has come out in the recent studies be mandatory by the doctors to give out as information for their patients to consider.

Sorry for the sarcasm but when I keep hearing how PCa victims here keep questioning a number of actual experts or clinics like Slone - Kettering convinced they know better it starts to get ridiculous after awhile. No I'll trust my personal doctor a respected PCa researcher's expertise over any layman here, sorry