It's important to note a couple things about
The reporter is severely misinformed. There is no test to staging, it is done by guidelines provided to the medical industry by the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Second, the study done by UCSF is based on clinical staging only. The findings are somewhat inconclusive and do not provide us any better information that the clinical staging based on a biopsy pathology report.
This has been on the InfoLink news stream for a couple days now, which prompted me to repost the AJCC2007 staging guidelines for prostate cancer.prostatecancerinfolink.net/2010/11/22/accuracy-and-relevance-of-clinical-stage-in-diagnosis-and-prognosis-of-localized-prostate-cancer/
Mikes write up covers these things.
My commentary is that clinical staging is only one piece of the prognostic indicators. We also have Pathologic Staging, Anatomic Staging, Gleason sum and grade, PSA and other things in the equation. To think that we can look at staging alone in prostate cancer is blindly putting faith into one aspect and excluding the others. Even with all of the others, there is no doctor that can accurately predict how someone will do after being treated. Even a stage IV, Gleason 10, PSA 100 can still do well for long periods of time. What we have after a biopsy is only partial information.
NPR's reporting did not take any of these things into account, and they misinterpreted the study at UCSF.
Advanced Prostate Cancer at age 44 (I am 48 now)
pT3b,N0,Mx (original PSA was 19.8) EPE, PM, SVI. Gleason 4+3=7
RALP ~ 2/17/2007 at the City of Hope near Los Angeles.
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.
"I beat up this disease and took its lunch money! I am in remission."
I am currently not being treated, but I do have regular oncology visits.
I am the president of an UsTOO chapter in Las Vegas
Blog : www.caringbridge.org/visit/tonycrispino
Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 11/23/2010 1:04:08 PM (GMT-7)