People older than 65 are more likely to have PCa: True or False

PSA3DOT7 -

We had a discussion on this very topic this past December:

www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3276862

That thread even included a survey inviting readers to give their ages at time of Dx (which is what you are asking). Interestingly, the resulting curve (number of respondents vs. age at Dx) produced an almost perfect normal distribution curve with a sample mean of around age 53. (Click on above link to see the curve).

So you are correct in your premise that the average age of guys here is less than (actually a good bit less than) age 65.

There was some discussion as to why this effect was occurring, with perhaps the best reason given being:

"I think a lot of the reason that our members here on the forum trend younger than you would expect is that Internet use is more pervasive for younger populations."

That would seem to make sense. The people who do show up here are more likely to have computer savvy than those who don't come here, being younger they have likely had more computer experience than the older guys, and the fact that they are indeed a younger audience gets reflected in the age survey in the above link. So our forum population turns out to be a bit skewed toward younger guys.

I suspect that if the same survey was run today the results would be about the same.

Thanks 81, Yeah I now recall the survey.

What was significant for me just perusing through most people's HW profile is that many of them were much younger than 65. Furthermore, according to the Cancer website, those older than 65 don't die from PCa! Maybe its just the grammar! It does, however state, that 27,540 cases will die in 2015. And, there will be 220,800 new cases in 2015!

halbert said...

So we end up with something that suggests that the most likely PC needing treatment is the one that is diagnosed at age 60 or younger, while at the same time they recommend against screening those in that age group to avoid overtreatment. Crazy.

It does make you wonder Halbert. I'm glad I had a PSA test; because if it had not been for the tests over the many years I would not have noticed a change. I had a 16 needle biopsy; Imagine if that one needle had missed that G9 specimen. Phew! If so, I would have been an "overtreatment" statistic!

And remember that there are lots of things out there trying to kill you. Heart problems, strokes, cars, trucks, criminals, angry wives, grandkids wanting your money faster for illegal habits, and the list goes on ... You'll notice I didn't include angry husbands of the girls you're chasing, since most of us are neutered by now by the PCa or the treatments. If any one of them gets you first, you did not die "of" PCa, you died "with" PCa.

Not really to make fun of the stats, but we all die of something. The stats count the most obvious cause of death.

But we've seen many sets of statistics that infer that your possibility of being found to have some grade of PCa, be it benign or high risk, to be equal to your age (i.e. 100 year old man is basically guaranteed to have some at least minimal PCa.

And yes, most of us here are younger, as we actually mess with computers. As I get older, my desire to remain "tech-savvy" is fast eroding.