MSKCC Male Life Expectancy Nomogram

Not a problem, HitchHiker. I just re-read the entire thread and confirmed that indeed nobody suggested AS to JayMot. Nobody. There was some good conversation relevant to PC, though.

I appreciate this discussion because it helps me deal with the ever present what ifs that are scrambling in my mind as I (with the help of my fiance) review my options.

One thing these studies dont tell you is the quality of life of those who live 15 plus years with no treatment. At year 8, are they dealing with severe medical complications from PC. Maybe it is not that they dont die, its that they dont really live.

Break60 said...
Yea I punched in my stats and got the message" this nomogram doesn't apply to you " 😟 Lol(not).
Bob

Really? I punched my G9/T3 self in and got results. And I find them interesting. First, since I am starting at an older age, I get some quite different results, considering that the average man- with or without PC- will be gone by 78. Or whatever the most current statistics are, might be a year or 2 later. So, starting at age 65 diagnosis, 15 years would put me at 80, well into the average check out age. So obviously, with or without treatment, a bunch of my group will have checked out.

So the figures are for untreated G9/T3/PSA11 fifteen years later:
1: 31 will still be alive
2: 27 out of 100 will have died of untreated PC
3: 42 will have died of other causes.

On the surface, for me, mind blowing. To say that even with this scary high risk Gleason, plus it has already escaped a bit from the capsule, and yet only 27 of 100 will have died of PC and almost 50% more will have died of something else even UNTREATED is just amazing! Even with very high risk and NO treatment, you are still quite a bit more likely to die of something else before it can kill you! (this included, of course, certain specific non PC health issues of mine, but basically healthy and they did not ask about my Calcium scoring test).

What about at only 10 years later, at age 75? 54 still alive, 21 dead of untreated PC, 25 dead of other causes. Even only 10 years out, still more men with untreated G9/T3 dying of something other than PC. Incredible, to me.

But like I said, that is not quite the entire story, is it? My URO got through to me real early on that just not technically dying from PC is not the whole ball game. I could still be alive at age 80, and have an appointment for heart attack or stroke the next day, and could have been suffering with advanced mets for many years. Of the 54 still alive a 10 years, or even the 25 who had died of other causes, how many had bone mets?

So really, these normograms don't tell me as much as I would like, though they probably give much more useful info for the low to low/intermediate groups.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/16/2016 9:34:20 PM (GMT-6)

"NKinney, You and I and others could point out new studies and statistics on the downsides of over-treatment, but it will simply fall on deaf ears for many men, as you have noted. Maybe some men will try to re-program their "wiring" after reading of the very low risk of AS and the prevalent SE's of treatments"

ASA -- well you did say this which honestly sounded sounded a little snooty to me. i'm fine with everything I've said on this thread.

ed

halbert said...

I think we need to take care here. Jay's pathology is definitely NOT low risk, and all the commentary in his direction about low risk cases could steer him in the wrong direction. Telling a guy with a 4+3 all this opinion about low risk cases and overtreatment do not apply to him.

Exactly right...let's quit hijacking threads to promote personal opinions...All the AS drum thumping on irrelevant threads is making me want to be here less and less. No where should AS or over treatment have been brought up here. (phrase deleted) and try helping people in constructive ways without talking down or insulting others treatment choices.


That said....Jay.... If you chose to not treat your PCa, which with a core at 4+3 would be well against the grain, then it is probably you would be alive in 10 years. The quality of that life would be in question.

In general PCa is a very slow growing cancer. But it still is cancer, and can and will kill you, or make your life such that it isn't worth living.

I would recommend to moving on and concentrating on your treatment options. You have what can be a daunting and overwhelming choice of treatments. Talk to some members here who have done radiation and surgery, etc... see how they have done. Talk to doctors in each specialty, break down the pros and cons for YOU...talk with family and make your choice.

Regardless, we are here to help and bounce ideas off. It's just like the current political primaries, you have to sort through the BS being slung around....but there are truths in most statements...

Best of luck to you, please keep us informed of your journey.

Jordan

Post Edited By Moderator (Tudpock18) : 3/17/2016 8:55:37 AM (GMT-6)

Based on all the data available, let's be frank about what we each look for in choosing or not choosing an option: moving the odds in our favour with the least amount of intervention, all the while struggling with what level of assurance we can live with, based on our chosen option.

There is a guy who goes to a peer to peer support group I've been attending since my DX, and he is a hard core advocate of watchful waiting. The more I allow him to "peddle his wares", the more I feel he is advocating his own denial as a validation of his own choice. Its not that I disagree with his personal choice, but I do feel his advocacy confuses newly diagnosed guys who are only trying to get answers about their own PCa.

NKinney said...
One example was from a very low-risk patient who chose aggressive treatment over surveillance; his point was that he basically didn’t believe in “data.” For the sake of JayMot, and for others who might read this thread in the future (with it’s great, searchable thread title), I felt it was relevant and value-added to call-out the conscious use of data over emotion (or visa-versa)…and directly address his question by verifying the validity of the MSKCC nomogram. To help understand the expanse of responses to this question, one must understand that some people may defend an emotion-based decision over data-based decision to the bitter end and claim the data is questionable; thus the appropriate reference in the PC-world to the common presence of “cognitive dissonance.” Awareness of perspectives on JayMot’s part is healthy.

FWIW, I hope you weren't referring to me on this thread, but if you were, feel free to email me at (email address deleted) as I'd like to continue this conversation offline.

Jaymot, do keep us posted on your due diligence process, and since you said that some of the posts on this thread have you really worried - in what way exactly? Let's see if we can tamp down the concerns for you.

Hitch, I took your email address out of the body of your post. Too many spammers harvesting this stuff. If you want to get emails, please activate your email here so that members can click the icon and send you one.
Jim

EDIT: Jim, got it and thanks. Email activated.

Post Edited (HitchHiker) : 3/17/2016 6:10:32 PM (GMT-6)