Re: Re: Economic Scene - ProstRcision and RCOG

[Guest guest]

I don’t want to get involved in this

discussion, which has been going on for almost as many years as I have had prostate

cancer, with no satisfactory conclusion, but I do have one question.

Don Cooley, who ran what was without doubt

the best PCa site and Forum on the Internet some years back (he has closed up

shop now because the load got to heavy) was a champion of RCOG and ProstRcision

– he even appeared on their videos and website as a ‘satisfied

patient’. Overnight almost, he changed his mind and his viewpoint. He wouldn’t

discuss why this was so a number of us reviewed various posts in the months

previous to his decision and came to a conclusion as to why this might be. Of

course our conclusions might have been completely wrong. Does anyone here know

why he changed his mind?

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 blk-shr

Sent: Saturday, 23 October 2010

4:59 AM

To:

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Re: Economic Scene - ProstRcision and RCOG

ProstRcision in a franchise.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ProstRcision as a treatment, BUT:

Early this year,I carefully examined ProstRcision stats and had serious emails

over this with Carl.

I had some help from a friend (PHd researcher)at major Basic Cancer Research

Institute on Carl's math, which he nor his colleagues could make any sense out

of.

The more the depth of my analysis the more questions and concerns. RCOG's

methodology seems to be their own, so it was virtually impossible to compare it

with other " centers of excellence " in Brachytherapy such as the

Seattle Prostate Institute, or even the Dattoli Institute where a similar

approach is used.

RCOG study references were very old and are not reflective of current

technology and " best practices " .

At least one reference didn't even seem appropriate since the study being

referenced is looking back historically at very old pioneering Brachytherapy

approaches. Yet RCOG comparatively used stats from these obsolete methodologies

as if they were reflective of current data instead of historical results from

decades earlier! A smoke and mirror play on the study's published date instead

of the date of the historical data being studied??

I believe there is a RTOG Trial in progress evaluating IMRT both after and

before " seeding " . I haven't looked at the status, of that Trial, but

similar studies from a number of reputable institutes have questioned any

significant net advantage.

Gold markers for IMRT setup are common and have been so for many years now --

as markers go, real-time Calypso GPS markers are more state-of-art, so this

just demonstrate how old Carl's data is.

I believe I still have copies of most of the studies referenced and would be

happy to provide and discuss them.

My biggest concern was, and is, " why RCOG's data is so old " and why

it had not been updated for longer term outcomes. It was like their results

were watered down and mathematically guestimated after eight years or so. That

might be OK a half decade ago, but why are they NOW using the same old obsolete

stats instead updated them with their actual long term outcomes?

This forum should help us sort the unknowns from the knowns, not hide what is

known. RCOG needs to be open like NIH Cancer Centers and present their data for

peer review in a sensible standard format.

> >

> > > I appreciate you taking the time to review the rcogpatients PCa

> > > comparison " Snapshot " charts. The information you are

looking

> > > for can be found in the body of the site but I will also attach

> > > it, including all references, to this email.

> >

> > Thanks. That helps a lot. I apologize for failing to find the

> > data on the website. [Not your fault, it wasn't east to find.]

> >

> > I appreciate the work that you and others put into this. I

> > appreciate that the patients make no money from this. I

> > appreciate the sophisticated work that you have done in putting

> > all of the information together.

> >

> > However I still have reservations......

> >

> > Alan

[Guest guest]

Terry,

My understanding is that he and RCOG may have agreed to not say

anything about each other after some kind of a falling out. I

communicated with him a number of times prior to that and I think I

successfully made a few of my points and he successfully made a few of

his points. I questioned some of his "treatment data" and he did the

same with what I was using for "treatment data". He did help me start

looking closer at all PCa reports and he would probably not like it but

where I currently am partially reflects his interest in sorting out

misleading information and incorrect information from more useful

information. No PCa treatment center reports are perfect but many are

as good as they will probably ever get.

Carl

Terry Herbert wrote:

I don’t want

to get involved in this

discussion, which has been going on for almost as many years as I have

had prostate

cancer, with no satisfactory conclusion, but I do have one question.

Don Cooley,

who ran what was without doubt

the best PCa site and Forum on the Internet some years back (he has

closed up

shop now because the load got to heavy) was a champion of RCOG and

ProstRcision

– he even appeared on their videos and website as a ‘satisfied

patient’. Overnight almost, he changed his mind and his viewpoint. He

wouldn’t

discuss why this was so a number of us reviewed various posts in the

months

previous to his decision and came to a conclusion as to why this might

be. Of

course our conclusions might have been completely wrong. Does anyone

here know

why he changed his mind?

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 blk-shr

Sent: Saturday, 23

October 2010

4:59 AM

To:

ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Re: Economic Scene - ProstRcision and RCOG

ProstRcision in a franchise.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with ProstRcision as a

treatment, BUT:

Early this year,I carefully examined ProstRcision stats and had serious

emails

over this with Carl.

I had some help from a friend (PHd researcher)at major Basic Cancer

Research

Institute on Carl's math, which he nor his colleagues could make any

sense out

of.

The more the depth of my analysis the more questions and concerns.

RCOG's

methodology seems to be their own, so it was virtually impossible to

compare it

with other "centers of excellence" in Brachytherapy such as the

Seattle Prostate Institute, or even the Dattoli Institute where a

similar

approach is used.

RCOG study references were very old and are not reflective of current

technology and "best practices".

At least one reference didn't even seem appropriate since the study

being

referenced is looking back historically at very old pioneering

Brachytherapy

approaches. Yet RCOG comparatively used stats from these obsolete

methodologies

as if they were reflective of current data instead of historical

results from

decades earlier! A smoke and mirror play on the study's published date

instead

of the date of the historical data being studied??

I believe there is a RTOG Trial in progress evaluating IMRT both after

and

before "seeding". I haven't looked at the status, of that Trial, but

similar studies from a number of reputable institutes have questioned

any

significant net advantage.

Gold markers for IMRT setup are common and have been so for many years

now --

as markers go, real-time Calypso GPS markers are more state-of-art, so

this

just demonstrate how old Carl's data is.

I believe I still have copies of most of the studies referenced and

would be

happy to provide and discuss them.

My biggest concern was, and is, "why RCOG's data is so old" and why

it had not been updated for longer term outcomes. It was like their

results

were watered down and mathematically guestimated after eight years or

so. That

might be OK a half decade ago, but why are they NOW using the same old

obsolete

stats instead updated them with their actual long term outcomes?

This forum should help us sort the unknowns from the knowns, not hide

what is

known. RCOG needs to be open like NIH Cancer Centers and present their

data for

peer review in a sensible standard format.

> >

> > > I appreciate you taking the time to review the

rcogpatients PCa

> > > comparison "Snapshot" charts. The information you are

looking

> > > for can be found in the body of the site but I will also

attach

> > > it, including all references, to this email.

> >

> > Thanks. That helps a lot. I apologize for failing to find the

> > data on the website. [Not your fault, it wasn't east to find.]

> >

> > I appreciate the work that you and others put into this. I

> > appreciate that the patients make no money from this. I

> > appreciate the sophisticated work that you have done in

putting

> > all of the information together.

> >

> > However I still have reservations......

> >

> > Alan