Diane, I also hope that Pete's recent rise is an abnormality and that the trend starts back down again. I'll say a little prayer for that to happen..
Realziggy, I thought you would enjoy reading about your procedure in the WSJ. I hope the results for you and the others in your clinical trial are outstanding. It would be great to have another treatment choice that is verified.
Also, realziggy, putting your sarcasm aside for the moment, I don't know if you caught a post I started last week wherein Dr. Ballentine Carter, head of adult urology at Johns Hopkins commented on the recent studies. I won't repeat the whole post here but these were his conclusions:
Bottom line: What the studies point out is that right now we still don't have a one-size-fits-all type test. While Dr. Carter believes that the value of the PSA test is still debated, until we have a better biomarker test that can differentiate inconsequential from lethal tumors, the PSA test needs to be used more judiciously. "I think a lot of the overtreatment we see has to do with using PSA as an absolute cutoff. I think PSA velocity, how fast the PSA moves over time, may be a better measure of the presence of lethal cancer.
"Doctors can get a lot more information if there is a PSA history, which is why I believe getting a baseline PSA at a younger age is a reasonable thing to do.," says Dr. Carter. "I recommend that all men should have an initial PSA test starting at age 40. A follow-up test should be given at age 45 and then again at age 50. Combining that information with the patient's age, size of the gland, and the free PSA test, should improve the accuracy of the PSA test. This will indicate their risk of developing prostate cancer.
"While not precise, it offers the best indication we have so far about the presence of cancer and what should be done," he says.
This provides some needed balance and perpective on the issue IMHO. And, Dr. Carter is no cutting fanatic...in fact, he runs the watchful waiting program for Hopkins.