Guest guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/1915.html This was posted on another yahoo group. I thought it might be valuable to those of you still in the decision making process regarding treament options. Seems to be a very honest approach. Laurel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 Thanks for the post! Although somewhat dated (2005), the article provides some useful and well-presented info on the effects of PSA screening on cancer statistics and the differences in development of more aggressive high-Gleason cancers versus less aggressive lower Gleason scores. Certainly a recommended read for the newly diagnosed! The Best to You and Yours! Jon in Nevada > > http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/1915.html > > This was posted on another yahoo group. I thought it might be valuable > to those of you still in the decision making process regarding treament > options. Seems to be a very honest approach. > > Laurel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 AFP representatives are the most anti-screening advocates in discussions of prostate cancer screening recommendations. I had someone come up to me at a large heath fair screaming at me that I was maiming men. I was frightened for my safety. Not all family practioners are so vocal but many say they will never get a PSA. Read what they say very carefully. This is an older article. You might also be interested in reading the attitude in this editorial so that you can understand where they are coming from. http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/editorials.html The article does have a good explanation of lead-time bias. Kathy > > http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/1915.html > > This was posted on another yahoo group. I thought it might be valuable > to those of you still in the decision making process regarding treament > options. Seems to be a very honest approach. > > Laurel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2008 Report Share Posted April 12, 2008 > AFP representatives are the most anti-screening advocates in discussions > of prostate cancer screening recommendations. I had someone come up to > me at a large heath fair screaming at me that I was maiming men. I was > frightened for my safety. Not all family practioners are so vocal but > many say they will never get a PSA. (snip) Ah yes. Ignorance is bliss. Until it's too late..... Regards, Steve J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 "In contrast, patients with Gleason 7 to 10 cancer should consider treatment (i.e., radical prostatectomy or radiation). These patients have a high risk of dying from prostate cancer, and disease-free survival appears to be better after treatment." In my father's case (Gleason grade: 3 + 4=7), my own research, coupled with the opinion of several different doctors confirmed this to be true. >> http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/1915.html> > This was posted on another yahoo group. I thought it might be valuable > to those of you still in the decision making process regarding treament > options. Seems to be a very honest approach. > > Laurel> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2008 Report Share Posted April 21, 2008 "Our studies confirm that high risk prostate cancer is best identified by Gleason score 7-10, but challenge the concept that men with high-grade disease are less likely to benefit from radical surgery. Men who have rising PSA values following treatment with either surgery or radiation have residual prostate cancer and are at very high risk of dying from prostate cancer within 10 years." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18401585 > >> > http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050515/1915.html> >> > This was posted on another yahoo group. I thought it might be valuable> > to those of you still in the decision making process regarding> treament> > options. Seems to be a very honest approach.> >> > Laurel> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.