Re: age

[Guest guest]

Sewell wrote:

> I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of

> 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic

> (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs

> considered young for prostate cancer ??,

As I understand it, yes, 52 is young. It is not the youngest I

have heard of. I know of one man diagnosed at age 39 and a

number of men diagnosed in their 40's including one who was in

his early 40's and was diagnosed with fairly advanced disease

which will probably soon kill him.

The average age at the time of diagnosis is said to be 70.

However, most men in the world with prostate cancer are probably

not diagnosed at all, but wind up dying of something else and

never knew that had PCa. A study cited in the Wikipedia (see

" Prostate Cancer " ) says: " Autopsy studies of Chinese, German,

Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other

causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in

their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s. "

Still, T2c and Gleason of 4+3 may have been severe enough that

treatment was warranted in your case. I think most experts now

say that a man of with Gleason 7 cancer, who is expected to live

at least 10 more years, should be treated. In your case, at age

52, you could reasonably expect to live 20, 30, or even more

years, which is a long time to allow a Gleason 7 cancer to

develop.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Hello ,

Well I was age 48 when diagnosed in June 2008 with stage T2a, Gleason 7 (4+3). I should probably have been diagnosed in July 2007 (age 47) when my PSA was 7.7, but my Dr at the time said it was nothing to worry about. I had 40 sessions of IGRT between Sept and Nov 2008. There are quite a few guys in the group of a similar age.

Malaga,Spain

age

I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

53 is considered ‘young’, but

not quite as ‘young’ as it was fourteen years ago when I was

diagnosed. At that time the average age of men being diagnosed in the us

was mid-70s. because of the widespread use of PSA testing that median age has

dropped about 10 years to the mid 60s. so in other words, when I was diagnosed I

was about 20 years younger than the median: you are about ten years younger

than the median.

The median age for death from PCa is still

about 80 – that hasn’t changed. The latest SEER mortality rates

(2002-2006) show the median age at death for cancer of the prostate was 80

years of age. That is to say, half the men who died from prostate cancer during

this period were more than 80 years of age. The figures also show that over 90%

of the men who died were over the age of 65. There were no statistically valid

deaths for men under the age of 34 and between 35 and 64 these were the

relevant figures: 0.1% between 35 and 44; 1.4% between 45 and 54; 7.2% between

55 and 64.

Given that most men diagnosed with prostate

cancer die of something else (97% of male deaths are NOT due to PCa) I always

feel that age of diagnosis is not a critical aspect – aggressiveness is. It

is the really aggressive forms of the disease that can kill a man before the

median.

You might find reading The Elephant In The

Room of interest - http://www.yananow.net/elephant.htm

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry

Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Sewell

Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 10:08

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

age

I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason

score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't

remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for

prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

If you are African-American, especially, that is not too young. Current thinking is that PSA alone is not a sole indicator for the presence of PCA, but positive indication of growth during a DRE is a stronger indication.

Louis. . . .

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 6:07:49 PMSubject: age

I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

I consider 51 a young age although my kids

feel I act a little old. At 50 I was diagnosed, Gleson 9 (5+4) T3b.

My uro wasn’t too surprised with my age although he did mention 60-70 is

the more common age PCa is diagnosed. He also said that by the age of 80,

80% of the men will have PCa. I have seen several cases here where men in

their 40s were diagnosed. I am beginning to feel that seeing PCa in the

50s is not so uncommon any more.

I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason

score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't

remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for

prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

When I last analysed the data on my

website (there were 822 stories then: now there are almost 870) the median age

was 57 – about 10 years younger than the median age for diagnosis in the US. I put this

down to less of the older men seeking information on the internet.

There are seven men under the age of

40 – the youngest being 34. The oldest man on the list was 82 when he was

diagnosed – quite a span!! The Index by age is here http://www.yananow.net/Chart-Ageu50.htm#40

Without wishing to stir the PSA

screening spot, the reason that more and younger men are being diagnosed is

because more and younger men are being biopsied and are being diagnosed with

very early stage, apparently no-aggressive PCa which would probably never

threaten their life.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry

Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Larry Helber

Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 3:36

PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

age

I consider 51 a young age although my kids feel I act a little

old. At 50 I was diagnosed, Gleson 9 (5+4) T3b. My uro wasn’t

too surprised with my age although he did mention 60-70 is the more common age

PCa is diagnosed. He also said that by the age of 80, 80% of the men will

have PCa. I have seen several cases here where men in their 40s were

diagnosed. I am beginning to feel that seeing PCa in the 50s is not so

uncommon any more.

I am 53 in Sept 09

I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate

was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52

yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

Terry

unfortunately according to this article what you say, “the reason

that more and younger men are being diagnosed is because more and younger men

are being biopsied and are being diagnosed with very early stage, apparently

no-aggressive PCa which would probably never threaten their life.” Isn’t

exactly accurate. See story at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090522081208.htm

“The

analysis revealed that, over time, men are being diagnosed with prostate cancer

at younger ages, likely due to more extensive screening. Also, younger men are

more likely to be treated with prostatectomy, have less aggressive cancers, and

have a better chance of survival after 10 years compared with older men.

However, among men with advanced prostate cancers, the youngest men (aged 35 to

44 years) have a particularly poor prognosis compared with older men. These

young men are more likely to die from cancer or another cause sooner than older

men with similar forms of cancer.

While

the reasons for this unexpected finding are not clear, the researchers suspect

that young men with advanced prostate cancer may have biologically more

aggressive forms of the disease than the forms that are diagnosed in older men.

Additional studies are needed to determine what, if any, underlying differences

exist between advanced prostate cancer found in young men vs. those found in

older men. These studies may help clinicians improve screening in young men and

could ultimately lead to the development of better treatment strategies for

these patients.”

I

just wish it was always true. If it were then it would make the screening

debate much easier. Nobody would recommend screening your men.

Kathy

From:

ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Terry

Herbert

Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:39 AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE: age

When I

last analysed the data on my website (there were 822 stories then: now there

are almost 870) the median age was 57 – about 10 years younger than the

median age for diagnosis in the US. I put this down to less of the older men

seeking information on the internet.

There

are seven men under the age of 40 – the youngest being 34. The

oldest man on the list was 82 when he was diagnosed – quite a span!! The

Index by age is here http://www.yananow.net/Chart-Ageu50.htm#40

Without

wishing to stir the PSA screening spot, the reason that more and younger men

are being diagnosed is because more and younger men are being biopsied and are

being diagnosed with very early stage, apparently no-aggressive PCa which would

probably never threaten their life.

All the

best

Prostate

men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry

Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A

Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Larry Helber

Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 3:36 PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE: age

I consider

51 a young age although my kids feel I act a little old. At 50 I was

diagnosed, Gleson 9 (5+4) T3b. My uro wasn’t too surprised with my

age although he did mention 60-70 is the more common age PCa is

diagnosed. He also said that by the age of 80, 80% of the men will have

PCa. I have seen several cases here where men in their 40s were

diagnosed. I am beginning to feel that seeing PCa in the 50s is not so

uncommon any more.

I

am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery

Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery

HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

Kathy Meade wrote:

> Terry unfortunately according to this article what you say,

> “the reason that more and younger men are being diagnosed is

> because more and younger men are being biopsied and are being

> diagnosed with very early stage, apparently no-aggressive PCa

> which would probably never threaten their life.†Isn’t exactly

> accurate. See story at

> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090522081208.htm

....

The Wikipedia article on prostate cancer cites a study of

autopsies of prostates of men who died in the 50's. PCa was

found in 30% of them. Since about 3% of men die of PCa, then

even if every man who dies of PCa had it in his 50's, it would

seem that only 10% of men who have PCa in their 50's will die of

the disease.

It seems to me that both Terry and the Science Daily article are

right. Terry is right in saying that many [perhaps most?] men

who are diagnosed and treated didn't need treatment. The SD

article is right in saying that men with " advanced " cancers do

need treatment.

Of course that's an oversimplification. If 30% of men are found

to have cancer in their prostates during an autopsy, the number

who would be found in a biopsy while they were alive could be

less. We'd have to know more about how the autopsies were done.

If they were done by using 12 needles, the same way a biopsy is

done, then I'd expect the numbers to be very comparable. If they

were done by slicing up the prostate and examining each slice,

then I would expect that more cancer would be found than in

biopsies.

In any case, there is no doubt that we need better testing

methods. We need a way to determine who has a cancer that really

needs treatment, as opposed to just who has cancer. The PSA,

Gleason, DRE, and biopsy tests give us some information about

that, but not as much as we need.

Alan

[Guest guest]

There is nothing new in what is said in this piece because it merely

confirms what one of the very few studies on this issue established in 1998 ( Albertsen PC, Hanley JA, Gleason DF, Barry MJ. Competing risk

analysis of men aged 55 to 74 years at diagnosis managed conservatively for

clinically localized prostate cancer. JAMA 1998 Sep 16;280(11):975-80)

What that study found was that IF a young man was diagnosed with a very

aggressive form of the disease his prognosis was worse than an older man with a

similar diagnosis. But that is a very big IF because very few young men are

diagnosed with a very aggressive disease. The Albertson study was done in the

days before the so called Gleason Migration which has seen the Gleason Grades

moving upwards. The aggressive diseases were associated with Gleason Scores of 8,

9, 10 – very unusual scores in young men. This is very different from

saying that the disease in younger men is more aggressive.

If younger men were more at risk, surely the number of deaths in the

younger groups would be higher than they are? As it is The SEER

statistics for the USA 2002-2006 show the median age at diagnosis for prostate

cancer was 68 years of age. Approximately 0.60% men were diagnosed aged between

35 and 44; 8.7% between 45 and 54; 29.0% between 55 and 64; 35.6% between 65

and 74; 21.4% between 75 and 84; and 4.7% 85+ years of age. This is about 7

years younger than it was prior to the introduction of PSA tests, when the

median age was in the mid-70s.

The latest SEER mortality rates (2002-2006) show the median age at death for

cancer of the prostate was 80 years of age. That is to say, half the men who

died from prostate cancer during this period were more than 80 years of age.

The figures also show that over 90% of the men who died were over the age of

65. There were no statistically valid deaths for men under the age of 34 and

between 35 and 64 these were the relevant figures: 0.1% between 35 and 44; 1.4%

between 45 and 54; 7.2% between 55 and 64.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry

Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Kathy Meade

Sent: Monday, 15 March 2010 2:09

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

age

Terry unfortunately according to this article what you say,

“the reason that more and younger men are being diagnosed is because

more and younger men are being biopsied and are being diagnosed with very early

stage, apparently no-aggressive PCa which would probably never threaten their

life.” Isn’t exactly accurate. See story at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090522081208.htm

“The analysis revealed that, over time, men are

being diagnosed with prostate cancer at younger ages, likely due to more

extensive screening. Also, younger men are more likely to be treated with

prostatectomy, have less aggressive cancers, and have a better chance of

survival after 10 years compared with older men. However, among men with

advanced prostate cancers, the youngest men (aged 35 to 44 years) have a

particularly poor prognosis compared with older men. These young men are more

likely to die from cancer or another cause sooner than older men with similar

forms of cancer.

While the reasons

for this unexpected finding are not clear, the researchers suspect that young

men with advanced prostate cancer may have biologically more aggressive forms

of the disease than the forms that are diagnosed in older men. Additional

studies are needed to determine what, if any, underlying differences exist

between advanced prostate cancer found in young men vs. those found in older

men. These studies may help clinicians improve screening in young men and could

ultimately lead to the development of better treatment strategies for these

patients.”

I just wish it was

always true. If it were then it would make the screening debate much easier.

Nobody would recommend screening your men.

Kathy

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of Terry Herbert

Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2010 12:39

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

age

When I last analysed the data on my website (there were 822 stories

then: now there are almost 870) the median age was 57 – about 10 years

younger than the median age for diagnosis in the US. I put this down to less of the

older men seeking information on the internet.

There are seven men under the age of 40 – the youngest

being 34. The oldest man on the list was 82 when he was diagnosed – quite

a span!! The Index by age is here http://www.yananow.net/Chart-Ageu50.htm#40

Without wishing to stir the PSA screening spot, the reason

that more and younger men are being diagnosed is because more and younger men

are being biopsied and are being diagnosed with very early stage, apparently

no-aggressive PCa which would probably never threaten their life.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in

1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of Larry Helber

Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 3:36

PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

age

I consider 51 a young age although my kids feel I act a little

old. At 50 I was diagnosed, Gleson 9 (5+4) T3b. My uro wasn’t

too surprised with my age although he did mention 60-70 is the more common age

PCa is diagnosed. He also said that by the age of 80, 80% of the men will

have PCa. I have seen several cases here where men in their 40s were

diagnosed. I am beginning to feel that seeing PCa in the 50s is not so

uncommon any more.

I am 53 in Sept 09

I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate

was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52

yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

Terry,

I find your statistics somewhat comforting. I wonder how these statistics reflect the PCa effects on other things that kill you that are PCa caused.

My Gleason is 7 and I am 62 first diagnosed 7 at 50.

Thanks,

Tom W.

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 6:39:56 PMSubject: RE: age

53 is considered ‘young’, but not quite as ‘young’ as it was fourteen years ago when I was diagnosed. At that time the average age of men being diagnosed in the us was mid-70s. because of the widespread use of PSA testing that median age has dropped about 10 years to the mid 60s. so in other words, when I was diagnosed I was about 20 years younger than the median: you are about ten years younger than the median.

The median age for death from PCa is still about 80 – that hasn’t changed. The latest SEER mortality rates (2002-2006) show the median age at death for cancer of the prostate was 80 years of age. That is to say, half the men who died from prostate cancer during this period were more than 80 years of age. The figures also show that over 90% of the men who died were over the age of 65. There were no statistically valid deaths for men under the age of 34 and between 35 and 64 these were the relevant figures: 0.1% between 35 and 44; 1.4% between 45 and 54; 7.2% between 55 and 64.

Given that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer die of something else (97% of male deaths are NOT due to PCa) I always feel that age of diagnosis is not a critical aspect – aggressiveness is. It is the really aggressive forms of the disease that can kill a man before the median.

You might find reading The Elephant In The Room of interest - http://www.yananow. net/elephant. htm

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow. net/StrangePlace /index.html

From: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com [mailto: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com ] On Behalf Of SewellSent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 10:08 AMTo: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) comSubject: [ProstateCancerSupp ort] age

I am 53 in Sept 09 I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52 yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,

[Guest guest]

Tom,

It seems to me that you are asking this

question in a different way on the Forum on my site:

<snip>So if you have P.Ca. and treatment. But die of a

heart attack, stroke or even an accident for example, what goes down on the

certificate as cause of death ? <snip>

If that is the case, you might be

interested in my response:

<snip>There is a very complex set of codes by which

deaths are classified.

For example, if you choose surgery for your diagnosed PCa and die on the table,

that will be logged as a surgical death. From memory, your death within two

days of the surgery will still be logged that way. After that....well, it all

depends. If you were unfortunate enough to get one of these awful diseases that

hang around hospitals these days your death would be classified as that

disease....and so it goes.

In a recent press conference discussing the question of whether PSA screening

did reduce the number of deaths, Dr Walsh, who supported that view, was asked

why the mortality rate had dropped in the UK, when there had not been the same

level of PSA screening there. His response was that in the UK, the death of PCa

men from pneumonia had been removed from the PCa Death classification, and that

made a significant difference to the outcome.

I told you it was complex!! <snip>

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.net/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Tom

Sent: Thursday, 18 March 2010 4:19

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

age

Terry,

I find your statistics somewhat comforting. I wonder how these

statistics reflect the PCa effects on other things that kill you that are PCa

caused.

My Gleason is 7 and I am 62 first diagnosed 7 at 50.

Thanks,

Tom W.

From: Terry Herbert <ghenesh_49optusnet.au>

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Sent: Sat, March 13, 2010 6:39:56

PM

Subject: RE:

age

53 is considered ‘young’, but not quite as ‘young’ as it was

fourteen years ago when I was diagnosed. At that time the average age of

men being diagnosed in the us was mid-70s. because of the widespread use of PSA

testing that median age has dropped about 10 years to the mid 60s. so in other

words, when I was diagnosed I was about 20 years younger than the median: you

are about ten years younger than the median.

The median age for death from PCa is still about 80 – that hasn’t

changed. The latest SEER mortality rates (2002-2006) show the median age at

death for cancer of the prostate was 80 years of age. That is to say, half the

men who died from prostate cancer during this period were more than 80 years of

age. The figures also show that over 90% of the men who died were over the age

of 65. There were no statistically valid deaths for men under the age of 34 and

between 35 and 64 these were the relevant figures: 0.1% between 35 and 44; 1.4%

between 45 and 54; 7.2% between 55 and 64.

Given that most men diagnosed with prostate cancer die of something

else (97% of male deaths are NOT due to PCa) I always feel that age of

diagnosis is not a critical aspect – aggressiveness is. It is the really

aggressive forms of the disease that can kill a man before the median.

You might find reading The Elephant In The Room of interest -

http://www.yananow. net/elephant. htm

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.

net/StrangePlace /index.html

From: ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com [mailto:

ProstateCancerSuppo rtyahoogroups (DOT) com ] On

Behalf Of Sewell

Sent: Sunday, 14 March 2010 10:08

AM

To: ProstateCancerSuppo

rtyahoogroups (DOT) com

Subject: [ProstateCancerSupp ort]

age

I am 53 in Sept 09

I was Diagnosed W T2c and a Gleason score of 4+3 had surgery Oct 21st Prostate

was removed none robotic (can't remember the type of surgery HMM) anyways is 52

yrs considered young for prostate cancer ??,