The great debate among prostate cancer experts and victims–when to treat and when to wait–won't gain much specific guidance from a recent study presented at the 105th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Urological Association
(AUA) in San Francisco, but it does gain perspective. HealthDay reports that the study looked at 453 men with lower-risk prostate cancer and determined how many would
have been offered treatment instead of monitoring based on such commonly
used "triggers" as measurements of prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The
treatment rates ranged from 42 percent to 84 percent.
Read more in a press release from URO Today.
Dennis Hopper’s death (way too early at 74) once again got me to look into the current state of prostate cancer knowledge. Prostate cancer is number one in the US. Considering that number 2 (lung) and 3 (colorectal) have very strong lifestyle associations, that makes prostate cancer that much more significant. From what I can find here is the bottom line – there is no reliable objective diagnostic test, the microscopic appearance of a biopsy doesn’t always correlate to the behavior of the tumor, and there is little agreement among doctors on treatment modalities. It seems as if the “moon river” exam combined with the PSA every year is the best thing we’ve got to catch it “early”. It’s amazing how little we know after all this time.
My father (obm) was diagnosed with prostate cancer at age 78 and had the prostate removed. He lived to a ripe old age of 92 and his death was not cancer related but rather to a SDH possibly due to taking blood thinners. His doctor said his long life was in part due to his cancer being caught super early. To die of prostate cancer in this day and age is a very unnecessary death.
You are correct and it is daunting when you are diagnosed with it and then do the necessary reading in order to make an informed decision. My case was lower risk middle grade and my prognosis is good. However, the number of question marks that pop up through time make the prognosis another question mark.
Having “been there and done that,” I have a hard time being objective with the discussions regarding not treating cancer. In the recesses of my mind the idea of a “conspiracy theory” designed to save medical costs always arises.