| 0 |
Subject: Prostate Cancer Testing: No change survival rates?
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [678299] Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 16:26
This is a sobering article.
Seems very counterintuitive, but I know nothing about prostate cancer treatments. If there is really no treatment, then early detection of this disease is merely buying you more worry time.
bili, is this stuff up your alley? |
| 1 | walk
ID: 2530286
Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 17:15
|
Hmmmm. I get a PSA two times per year, being in my mid-40s and my dad having died from prostate cancer. My urologist says it is not the best test, but a good indicator particulary if you see a trend upwards of the detection of the prostate specific antigen.
|
| 2 | sarge33rd
ID: 99331714
Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 17:37
|
One article is far from conclusive for a decision, but that one certainly seems on the surfcae, to support the ocntention that early detection, simply means early worry over a nearly non-combatable condition.
|
| 3 | biliruben
ID: 17502215
Wed, Aug 29, 2007, 17:38
|
One of my professors railed against broad PSAs years ago (I don't know if the test has gotten better or not), because of it's poor sensitivity and specificity, because the common treatment (prostatectomy) has such horrible quality of life side-effects (incontinence and erectile dysfunction) no good way to tell whether you really have cancer and if you do whether that would ever progress, and whether the treatment was even effective (what I assume the article is about, though I don't have time to read it now).
I really haven't studied the issue myself so don't take my word over your docs, but I'm certainly not high on PSA tests. Even having turned 40 last week.
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|