Re: Economic Scene - ProstRcision and RCOG

[Guest guest]

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