Good news for today's RP patients

Interesting article published by Stephenson et al out of the Cleveland Clinic, U Mich and Sloan-Kettering. Abstract at jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/JCO.2008.18.2501v1 and discussion at prostatecancerinfolink.net/2009/07/28/15-year-outcomes-after-radical-prostatectomy-a-new-predictive-model/#more-6527.

Conclusions: Fifteen-year PCSM (Prostate Cancer Specific Mortality) and all-cause mortality were 12% and 38%, respectively. The estimated PCSM ranged from 5% to 38% for patients in the lowest and highest quartiles of predicted risk of PSA-defined recurrence, based on a popular nomogram (presumably the MSKCC Kattan Nomogram). Biopsy Gleason grade, PSA, and year of surgery were associated with PCSM....Neither preoperative PSA velocity nor body mass index improved the model's accuracy. Only 4% of contemporary patients had a predicted 15-year PCSM of greater than 5%.

For what it's worth. Alas, they want $22 to read the full article, so I'll have to wait until I get back to the States and can have interlibrary loan get me a copy.

This is good news...BUT....two factors need to be considered. One, the typical robotic or open surgical procedures have improved vastly. Second and foremost, a greater number of men have surgery with very low grade maybe even indolent cancer than previously due to PSA testing and patient awareness. That in itself will skew the percentages and statistics. But still it appears that the trend has been moving upward and that is good news.

Thanks, Larry.

I'll always take any good news you can give us!

All the best,

Barry

Tony, you make a valid point.

But I still think that more men are being treated earlier today, than just 10 years ago and those that are having surgery as their choice of treatment will have lower grade tumors. I don't have statistics or anything, just seems like the more you read, the more men are diagnosed earlier with lower grade cancer...which is the good news btw. Early detection is the key to any form of cancer, but that can be used to show favor of one treatment method over another. If you detect the cancer early enough, then every type or treatment method used to treat the cancer would show an increase in survival stats. I am just saying...because I am still not convinced one method is better than another and I become a little cynical. I think that early detection will automatically provide better survival numbers...and the method of treatment only being secondary IMHO.