Post-procedure statistics can be mis-leading. The patients choose various procedures based on their personal situations. These groups seem to have certain distinct characterisitcs.
For example, I'm not certain if this is still status quo
but, initially only patients with very robust prognoses were considered for candidacy for Proton Therapy. -- probably to keep comorbidities from skewing the data being collected from the comparatively small population of patients.
Otherwise healthy men,with low gleason scores, are most typically advised to choose radical prostatectomy. Proton Beam - and perhaps some day HIFU - and then perhaps that "easy, cheap, no-side-effect cure for all cancer
," - these will surely follow in due time for this younger, healthy, low-gleason group.
Improvements in surgery & anesthesia and
early detection (& the resulting ever-increasing chance of catching the cancer before capsular penetration) are some of the reasons our group seems skewed to surgery options. (The younger patient is more likely to use electronic media, too.)The various radiation treatments are still so very important.
As Julie has so eloquently commented, the smaller group representation here on this forum weights the importance of the "minority report" (e.g., radiation and/or HT)-related individual posts over the "radical majority."
As we each personalize and customize our treatment choice, it becomes ever-more apparent how Ms. Bluebird's work pioneering the index for this forum is such a blessing for everyone (that only those of us that did not have its benefit early-on can entirely appreciate). (Take a bow, Ms. Lee!)CCedar