Please help me understand something

AEG,

I read the article and the stats...  From my take, the stats are for prostate cancer that is not treated...

For example, if prostate cancer started in me and I did not do anything for 5 years, I would probable still be alive....  After that time of being untreated, the chances are that it would eventually escape to other organs and kill me (if untreated).

Remember, most prostate cancers are slow growing and that is where the 100% 5 year survival stat comes into play.

Ray

A,
All I have read since October does not concur with this article when it comes to that what is essentially a statement that 48% die by ten years after Dx. In fact from what I have read this information on this portion of the article is bogus. It is well known that over 200,000 will get prostate cancer in the US this year alone.  In fact for the last 15 years that has been the case.  So why is the death toll under 30,000 per year.  I believe the author may have crossed up survival with recurrance. But in addition, there is another basic issue with this article. It is written in 2000 and much has changed with this disease and the availably treatments. In fact, I don't like this article as it is all over the place on its informitive value. The following is suspect:

1> "Chemotherapeutic drugs such as doxorubicin" . The Chemotheraputic drugs widely used today are Docytaxil (Taxotere) combined with Prednisone. Casodex is also used as an oral chemo drug and is normally used with Androgen blockade or hormone treatment. And the target is testosterone not estrogen. While there is still some discussion for late stage disease and the value of adding estrogen, it has been found that the side effects of this type of treatment is nearly as deadly as the disease itself.

2> "No single cause of prostate cancer has ever been determined, but the single biggest risk factor for prostate cancer is eating products that contain animal fat." This indicates ALL animal fats. Perhaps in the diet certain animal fats are truly an issue. But what kind of animal fat? Omega-3 fats are not a problem thus fish high in Omega-3 is the exact opposite effect. This line indicates that you need to stop eating animals. This is not true. In fact there are some here, and a gent I went to lunch yesterday with that are vegitarians and have prostate cancer. In addition, from what I've read heredity is the largest prostate cancer risk.   And in the publications I have read, complete elimination of animal fats is almost never suggested.  Moderation and proper preparation like no "blackening" of the meats is commonly suggested. 

3> The references in this article are well aged. In fact one of the reference materials is dated 1976. Uh get that outa here. In fact the newest reference is 2000, I'd toss that one too.  Much has changed in the treatment choices.  And the results are improving drastically.  In fact it is now possible to turn a Gleason 10 with stage IV into a chronic illness instead of a death sentence.

I hope you have had the opportunity to read up on Dr. Myers book or Peter Scardino's book as well as other RECENT books by medical doctors that are experienced in the treatment and diets for this disease. The nformation you should take heed in are written by the guys in the field at major cancer centers. The histograms there are from actual case load. These statistics are updated regularly and adjust to new treatments.

I don't rate this article even a C-. It is well understood that diet can affect the results but, this is too vague and too outdated. I concur with Selmer.

Tony

Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 8/6/2007 10:35:31 AM (GMT-6)

True, Swim,
There are many older studies that apply today. But this is no study, just an article. I look back to the year 2000 and there are many studies I would take heed. Partin tables were first drafted in the 90's and were later updated as more cases were added. In fact the tables have changed again just recently. There is one study from the 60's that remains accurate today. It the study by Gleason that resulted in the Gleason grading system. But they didn't have the PSA assay then and were inaccurately predicting mortality on a regular basis until that was added into the prognositcs. Sure those old studies helped create new treatments, but to indicate 48% of all prostate cancer patients will be dead by ten years...to that I say - Not true. Not close. On the other hand, 5 year survival at 100% is also ambiguous and incorrect in its stated format. There are those that do not live that long with this diease and it unfortunately takes them quickly. I guess if you look in general terms the article is more readable. But 7-8 years ago, that 48% thing was not right even then.  I believe that she missed the recurrance rate thing and called it survival.  PSA came out after a lot of the reference material and PSA has given us a great tool to catch this disease early and the rates of survival are not the same as 1987 when the test was first approved.


Tony

Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 8/6/2007 11:15:34 AM (GMT-6)

Thank you for your respones, I feel better now.

A.