Re: Active Surveillance was.... Elevated PSA

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Steve Jordan says, as he does so often,

>

> <snip> As B. Strum, MD, one of the best and brightest,

> has written,

> " There is NOWHERE in oncology where waiting for the tumor cell

> population to

> increase (and to mutate) is in the better interests of the patient. "

> (emphasis his) <snip>

>

> He seems by this oft repeated statement to be implying that Strum

> would

> never support an Active Surveillance strategy.....

I'm unsure where Terry is going with this. Let us be clear: I

don't " imply. " If my intention is to claim that Strum would

" never support an Active Surveillance strategy, " I would say so.

I do not represent Dr. Strum. If Terry wishes to clarify

something with him, I suggest that Terry ask him.

We've been through this waltz before.....

Regards,

Steve J

[Guest guest]

Sorry if I put a burr under your saddle Steve. That wasn't my intention.

Dr Strum's position is clear - he supports Active Surveillance, or as he

terms it Objectified Observation, in suitable cases.

What is your position? It seems to me, and possibly others, that when you

include that quote of Strum's you are using his words to imply that he does

not support Active Surveillance.

I am merely trying to clarify what seems to be a mixed message, so could you

state your position and how it relates to the Strum quotation?

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

Re: Active Surveillance was.... Elevated

PSA

>

>

> Steve Jordan says, as he does so often,

>

> <snip> As B. Strum, MD, one of the best and brightest,

> has written,

> " There is NOWHERE in oncology where waiting for the tumor cell

> population to

> increase (and to mutate) is in the better interests of the patient. "

> (emphasis his) <snip>

>

> He seems by this oft repeated statement to be implying that Strum

> would

> never support an Active Surveillance strategy.....

I'm unsure where Terry is going with this. Let us be clear: I

don't " imply. " If my intention is to claim that Strum would

" never support an Active Surveillance strategy, " I would say so.

I do not represent Dr. Strum. If Terry wishes to clarify

something with him, I suggest that Terry ask him.

We've been through this waltz before.....

Regards,

Steve J

------------------------------------

There are just two rules for this group

1 No Spam

2 Be kind to others

Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot

and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other

options.

Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

>

> Sorry if I put a burr under your saddle Steve. That wasn't my intention.

>

> Dr Strum's position is clear - he supports Active Surveillance, or as he

> terms it Objectified Observation, in suitable cases.

I think we need to realize the original poster no longer has a prostate. He's

dealing with a recurrence where PSA is a very good indicator of the progression

of the disease. Watchful waiting is not a good option with this I'd think. With

a tripling of the PSA in a very short time, assuming the testing is accurate,

sooner is better than later regarding treatment. But from what I've read an

increasing PSA so soon after surgery can often indicate a remote tumor growth as

opposed to local. Let's hope this is not the case here as radiation treatment is

an ordeal from what I've been told. I'm probably facing this myself at some time

in the near future.

[Guest guest]

I wasn’t commenting on a specific

case – hence the change of title for the thread. I wanted to know if

Steve Jordan supported the concept of Active Surveillance in suitable cases or

not. The Quote he posts seems to indicated that he does not support the concept.

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 mccartney_7@...

Sent: Friday, 10 September 2010

3:02 PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Re: Active Surveillance was.... Elevated PSA

>

> Sorry if I put a burr under your saddle Steve. That wasn't my intention.

>

> Dr Strum's position is clear - he supports Active Surveillance, or as he

> terms it Objectified Observation, in suitable cases.

I think we need to realize the original poster no longer has a prostate. He's

dealing with a recurrence where PSA is a very good indicator of the progression

of the disease. Watchful waiting is not a good option with this I'd think. With

a tripling of the PSA in a very short time, assuming the testing is accurate,

sooner is better than later regarding treatment. But from what I've read an

increasing PSA so soon after surgery can often indicate a remote tumor growth

as opposed to local. Let's hope this is not the case here as radiation

treatment is an ordeal from what I've been told. I'm probably facing this

myself at some time in the near future.

[Guest guest]

>

> Dr Strum's position is clear - he supports Active Surveillance,

> or as he terms it Objectified Observation, in suitable cases.

Me, too.

Regards,

Steve J