Statistics and Such

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

stxdave
Regular Member


Date Joined Nov 2008
Total Posts : 65
   Posted 4/26/2009 2:23 PM (GMT -6)   
There are a lot of statistics bantered about and a lot of believers in the mathmatics of Prostate Cancer. I was reminded of a site, by a friend from Spain, with a message for those whose mathmatical odds are less than desirable.

The originator of the site. Robert Vaugn Young, was diagnosed with advanced PCa with a PSA level over 1000. I talked with Robert via email several times after I found the site in 2000. Though now deceased, his message and the information provided by his site is still relevant today, even though technology has progressed. The particular message I site, listed below, is just one of many there.

Take heart, don't be a statistic.

Dave

http://www.phoenix5.org/articles/GouldMessage.html
Dx'd 1999, Age 60, PSA 43, Gleason (3+4=7), T3c
42-3d EBRT w/Lupron/Casodex for 24 months and PSA remaining to be <0.1 for the entire 24 month period.
July 2001 - 2nd opinion required to go intermittent ADT.
MDAnderson biopsy revised Gleason (4+5=9).
Intermittent ADT, Lupron only, with PSA threshhold established at 1.0.
March 2007 - Diminishing returns with Lupron, conferred with MDA urologist for bilateral orchiectomy. Uro asked for biopsy of prostate again. Biopsy resulted in tumors found with Gleason (5+4=9).
August 2007 - RRP and bilateral orchiectomy. PSA <0.1
99% continent immediately
September 2008 - PSA 0.45
November 2008 - PSA 0.67
December 2008 - Resume Casodex
December 2008 - Stricture in bladder neck requiring surgical removal. 99% incontinent immediately.


Life is not waiting for the storm to pass, it's learning to dance in the rain.


geezer99
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2009
Total Posts : 990
   Posted 4/27/2009 1:28 PM (GMT -6)   
I thank you for calling our attention to Stephen J Gould’s cautionary tale about cancer statistics. But we need to consider what lesson we should take from it. If you think that the lesson is something like; “Statistics are worse than ‘darned lies’” then you have missed the point. Here, is what I would suggest we learn from Gould’s essay.

1) Know what the statistics cover and what they don’t.
Gould noted that the mortality statistics for abdominal mesothelioma did not take into account age at diagnosis, tumor stage at diagnosis, and the absence of a significant causal factor, workplace exposure to asbestos. Thus he reasoned that his situation; young, early detection, no workplace exposure, might place him in a different group from most of those diagnosed.

2) Recognize that outcomes depend on treatments.
Given that the outcomes of standard treatment were so disappointing, Gould opted for what were then experimental treatments. This is still a good option – the worse your particular odds of cure by standard treatment the more strongly you should consider participating in clinical trials of new treatments.

Finally let me make one more point which was not in Gould’s article.

3) Statistics always lag behind available treatment
If you look at the Sloane-Kettering nomograms you will see only three treatment options: radical prostatectomy, brachytherapy, and external beam radiation therapy. Is this because no other treatments are worth mentioning? No, it is because there is insufficient data on other treatments to establish rigorous probabilities. By the way, among these “unproven” therapies is robotic prostatectomy. Why? Because, while the initial results look good (Egawa, S. Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy as Our Bridge to the Future?, Eur Urol (2008),doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2008.11.044) there is not yet enough long term data, such as ten-year progression rate, to be statistically certain.
Age at diagnosis 67, PSA 5.5
Biopsy 12/08 12 cores, 8 positive
Gleason 3 + 4 = 7
CAT scan 1/09 negative, Bone scan 1/09 negative

Robotic surgery 03/03/09 Catheter Removed 03/08/09
Post surgical pathology report. Lymph nodes negative, Seminal vesicles negative
Surgical margins positive, Capsular penetration extensive Gleason 4 + 3 = 7

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
Forum Information
Currently it is Wednesday, May 23, 2018 7:09 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,965,239 posts in 325,225 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 162945 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, Deb358.
363 Guest(s), 7 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
buckeyecrohnie, Not Around, Through, JudyLinx'd, sandyfeet, GuitarGERD, Mark FW, SharonZ