Statistics

[Guest guest]

One of my observations over the years is that if I

quote ‘awkward’ statistics that seem to point away from a cherished

belief, I am told that there is no value in statistics, etc etc. On the other

hand if there are statistics that support the status quo, they are regarded as

genuine and acceptable. A case in point is the ruckus over the two large and contradictory

studies concerning the value of screening.

For anyone interested in the subject of the broad

statistics of PCa, this report may be useful - http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/59/4/225#TBL7

There are a couple of points to highlight:

1. Figure 3 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/content/vol59/issue4/images/large/CAAC20006fig003.jpeg

shows how the incidence of PCa rocketed in the late 80s when PSA testing was

introduced. It then fell (presumably because the first ‘sweeps’ had

netted a large number of cases and started rising again until about 2002/3. It

may be only coincidental that there was a significant change in the definition

of PCa in 2002 when material graded as Gleason Grade 2 was no longer labelled

as prostate cancer – and Gleason Score 5 diseases all but disappeared.

2. Figure 4 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/content/vol59/issue4/images/large/CAAC20006fig004.jpeg shows how

the mortality rate rose sharply in conjunction with the increased incidence and

then started falling back to levels last seen in the 1950s. This graphs shows

very clearly the enormous gap between the leading death dealing cancer - lung

cancer – and prostate cancer.

3. Figure 9 http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/59/4/225/TBL9

shows the number of male deaths (1,201,942 in all) by the ten leading causes. Table

8 shows the number of prostate cancer deaths as 28,372 (4,000 less than in 1990),

which is to say 2.36% of male deaths were from prostate cancer. If you look at the

numbers of deaths in each of the top ten categories, you will see that the

number of deaths from PCa is only a little higher than the number from suicide

and influenza and way below causes such as heart failure (315,706 deaths),

other cancers (261,697 deaths) and even accidents (78,941). The actual causes

do, of course, vary with age but at every age there is a much greater chance of

dying from something other than PCa – even for men diagnosed with the

disease.

Of course it is not possible for an individual to say that

any populations statistic applies specifically to them. That is why it is

important to gain a better understanding of how a dangerous, life threatening

form of prostate cancer is defined, and how your own diagnosis compares to that

definition. It is only then that you can start making a logical decision as to what

is best for you as an individual and not to automatically assume that a

definition of an early stage, very low risk cancer will lead to your death. It

should be borne in mind that in terms of the new interpretation of Gleason

Grades a score of 3+3=6 is the ‘entry level’ for a definition of

PCa diagnosed from a needle biopsy. There is nothing lower. So, although 7a

or 7b diagnoses (3+4=7 or 4+3=7) are more aggressive, they are only marginally

so.

I just wish every man should gain a better understanding of

the various factors that go into a PCa diagnosis and the estimation of

longevity and just where they fit in to those broad statistics before they make

a decision that might not be in their best long term interests.

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