The guy who discovered PSA -

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

Sonny3
Veteran Member


Date Joined Aug 2009
Total Posts : 2447
   Posted 3/9/2011 3:26 PM (GMT -6)   
Not only does Richard Albin, the guy who discovered PSA and the resulting testing, want the Test to go away, he is 70 years old and has never had a PSA test in his life.

Just FYI and fodder for conversation;

www.orlandosentinel.com/health/la-he-cancer-psa-test-20110307,0,7351476.story

Sonny

60Michael
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 2222
   Posted 3/9/2011 3:36 PM (GMT -6)   
Thanks Sonny. Interesting reading and different opinions. All I can say is the test caught my Gleason 8.
Michael

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 3/9/2011 3:38 PM (GMT -6)   
Thanks for posting that article Sonny. I totally disagree with the tone of it, none of means a thing to any of us dealing with aggresive cancers, tough treatments, side effects ,and none of it help the nearly 40,000 that die every year of PC in this country alone. As often said here, it is just a blood test. I even found it out that the PSA "inventor" is opposed to its use.

If one chooses not to be test, certainly is their right and their prostate, but I am thankful that mine was detected when it was, rather than later, if anything, I wish it could have been dx 2-3 years earlier, I may have had a better outcome than now dealing with both a failed surgery and failed SRT.

David in sC
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos marg
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06 2/11 1.24
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/10,

Trepidation
Regular Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 173
   Posted 3/9/2011 3:45 PM (GMT -6)   
PSA is not the end all in testing but rather an indicator. It's up to the next blood tests that aid in treatment from my readings.

F8
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 3802
   Posted 3/9/2011 3:48 PM (GMT -6)   
my PC was caught through a PSA test.  i had no symptoms and my DRE was negative.  PSA saved my life...or at the very least lengthened it.
 
ed
 
 
age: 55
PSA on 12/09: 6.8
gleason 3+4 = 7
HT, BT and IGRT
received 3rd and last lupron shot 9/14/10
2/8/11 PSA <.1, T= 6 ng/dl

MikeS24
Regular Member


Date Joined Oct 2010
Total Posts : 131
   Posted 3/9/2011 4:17 PM (GMT -6)   
"Ablin, a research professor of immunobiology and pathology at the University of Arizona, called PSA testing a "hugely expensive public health disaster."

The test, he says, is inaccurate and misleading. Worse, it puts many man on a path toward invasive and life-changing treatments that they could easily have lived without. "We're spending $3 billion a year on a test that cannot detect cancer," he says. "

My cancer was detected via a PSA test. My DRE was negative. It was the PSA test that led to having a biopsy and subsequent surgery. So that was a public health disaster? I guess Albin figures it would have been better if I had waited to have a nice fat lump that a doctor could feel on my DRE and then have a biopsy that instead of reading a Gleason 6 would have been a 7 or more. That would have made Albin sleep better at night!

Well Albin, you can stick that opinion where the sun don't shine. Oh, wait that's the DRE test. I am confusing the two exams. Sorry.

My doctor told me the PSA test and subsequent treatment gave me a multiple year head start on treatment. Without the PSA I could have lived in ignorant bliss while my prostate continued to consume itself with cancer. My PSA test was like having a time machine. I was diagnosed in 2010 but as my doctor said, I would have been in serious trouble by 2020. Yea!, just in time to retire and go off into a corner and cry. So having the PSA now was turning back time in a sense because in 2020 I would have begged, borrowed and stolen anything I could for it to be 2010 again so that I could treat my disease while it was still organ confined.

Perhaps Albin just feels guilty because he could not come up with a test that was definitive enough. But we all know that PSA is just a smoke alarm not a confirmation of a fire. It takes further testing via the biopsy to determine what we should do. So even if we know we have a small cancer after a biopsy, can anyone tell how long we CAN wait to treat it. How long the window of curability will remain open before it shuts on us. Sure, Albin might feel remorse that the PSA could never fulfill that question. However for me, it surely provided far more suitable options than a positive DRE in 2018 to 2020 and a biopsy around that time with Gleason 4 or 5 scores in nearly all sample cores. I sure would not be happy with that news in a non-PSA world.

In my opinion, don't discredit PSA. Use it as one of many tools to maintain health. The hard decisions are not driven solely by PSA, It is just a starting point to more questions and further testing. PSA is a great start even though it is not the be all and end all test.

Thanks for pointing out the article. It is extremely interesting reading.

Mike S
Dx 56
Biopsy: Gleason 3+3=6, PSA 6.6 One core of 12 with 5% T1c
Surgery: July 2010 J. Hopkins
Pathology Gleason 6, Neg Mar, Neg LN, Neg Sem Vesicles
9/15/10 1st post op PSA >0.1 undetectable
3/11/11 PSA - TBD
Incontinence - very slow recovery
Aug -Sept 2010 - 4-5 pads
Oct 2010 3 pads
Nov 2010 2 pads
Dec - Feb 2011 1 pad all day - 1 pad at night
ED: slow improvements

Post Edited (MikeS24) : 3/9/2011 3:20:50 PM (GMT-7)


daveshan
Regular Member


Date Joined Jan 2010
Total Posts : 363
   Posted 3/9/2011 4:45 PM (GMT -6)   
The DRE my GP did was "normal" my Uro found a 1.5cm lump but never would have had her finger near me if it wasn't for a (2nd) high PSA. If my GP had bothered to tell me about the first one I'd have been 20 months ahead on treatment.

Just goes to show 2 things IMO, 1. A GP is not as good as a specialist and 2. A PSA test does give us a chance, if I hadn't had a PSA test and instead have waited for the lump to be big enough for my GP to find it I'd be even farther behind the curve than I am now.

I really hate the people who try to claim PSA isn't a valid test, I guess my life don't mean crap.

Dave in Durango CO
07-06 PSA 2.5
01-08 PSA 5.5
09-09 PSA 6.5
12-09 Biopsy, initial Gleason 9 (4+5) later reduced to 8 with tertiary 5
03-01-10 Age 55 RRP in Durango CO by Dr Sejal Quale and Dr Shandra Wilson
03-16-10 Path' G-8 (4+4+5) Bilateral involving 21% of left lobe, 3% of right lobe, SVI, Focal positive margin, pT3b NO MX

All PSA as of 1-25-11 <0.04

Post Edited (daveshan) : 3/9/2011 3:49:52 PM (GMT-7)


BillyMac
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2008
Total Posts : 1858
   Posted 3/9/2011 7:02 PM (GMT -6)   
As hard as it is for us (being in the front line as we are), let's try and put our own cases aside. NB: I am one of those detected solely as a result of biopsy which came about because of a slightly elevated PSA (3.9/4.1). No symptoms, negative DRE etc. The facts are, whether we like it or not, tumour detection and it's subsequent treatment (involving many millions and millions of dollars) has increased markedly as a result of PSA testing, but has not altered in the slightest the death rate due to PCa. The only way this could have come about is (1) early treatment of PCa is having no effect, or (2) early treatment is saving many lives but the incidence of PCa within the general population is increasing at a matching rate to the lives being saved. If the later is the case then we need to ask ourselves why the incidence of PCa would be increasing so dramatically.
Bill

F8
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 3802
   Posted 3/9/2011 7:09 PM (GMT -6)   
PSA is a tool.  if it's being "misused" that's the fault of the tool?  man i just don't get the logic there.
 
ed
 
 
age: 55
PSA on 12/09: 6.8
gleason 3+4 = 7
HT, BT and IGRT
received 3rd and last lupron shot 9/14/10
2/8/11 PSA <.1, T= 6 ng/dl

Fairwind
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2010
Total Posts : 3744
   Posted 3/9/2011 9:49 PM (GMT -6)   
Dr. Albin sees only the dark side of PSA "screening" where many men with indolent Gleason 6 PC are pushed towards treatment he feels is unwarranted and he might be right..But he ignores the G-7 and up guys who are alive today because of the test he invented...

This is not news..Albin first voiced his objections to how PSA testing and routine screening was being used at least two years ago..
Age 68.
PSA age 55: 3.5, DRE normal.
age 58: 4.5
61: 5.2
64: 7.5, DRE "Abnormal"
65: 8.5, " normal", biopsy, 12 core, negative...
66 9.0 "normal", 2ed biopsy, negative, BPH, Proscar
67 4.5 DRE "normal"
68 7.0 3rd biopsy positive, 4 out of 12, G-6,7, 9
RALP Sept 3 2010, pos margin, one pos vesicle nodes neg. Post Op PSA 0.9 SRT, HT. 2-15-'11 PSA 0.0

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 3/9/2011 11:43 PM (GMT -6)   
Boy I can't tell you where I'd be today if it wasn't for a "random" PSA assay run on me before I knew what one was.

My first test came out as 19.8. I was just 44 so highly uninformed about any of it when my doctor gave me a basic physical and pulled a few vials of blood and checked the PSA box without me knowing.

It's tough for a guy like me to believe that the PSA test should not have been made. I understand what Albin is saying ~ and I have heard him say it before...but I am pretty thankful of his work. And I know a lot of people that would agree with me.

Tony
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

Treatments:
Da Vinci Surgery ~ 2/16/2007
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.
Undetectable PSA.

Blog: www.caringbridge.org/visit/tonycrispino

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3732
   Posted 3/10/2011 12:05 AM (GMT -6)   
I live in NY State where we are required to have our cars inspected annually for $20 to keep unsafe cars off the road.
Of the 15.5 million inspections given annually, 20% of cars fail inspection the first time.
Using the logic in the above article can I say: " 80%, or 13 million vehicles, were inspected needlessly at a cost of $260 million and untold man hours hours?" Ridiculous.

I wish my first PSA had come back negative instead of 17.8 .
The PSA test saved my life. (No matter what the National Enquirer says.)

Jeff

Post Edited (Worried Guy) : 3/11/2011 12:57:18 PM (GMT-7)


Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 3/10/2011 9:41 AM (GMT -6)   
This always gets emotional quick. Dr Albins views have been around for awhile. It's not that it saves a few men, it's how many have undergone radical procedures and the resulting side effects that may have never needed to. Is a few men possibly saved worth the cost of thousands over treated needlessly. Bottom line supporting the doctor is that now 20+ years later after the advent of the PSA test the projected lives saved have never materialized while the amount of radical procedures has skyrocketed. The PSA test initially was supposed to make the DRE no longer needed and were to greatly lower the PCa mortality rate, neither has happened.

The Psa is a great tool but as long as too many think all cancers are alike and must be cut our immediately or rush weeks later for radical surgery after dx the psa test will continue to be abused. For that reason alone brings in the question as to the REAL effectiveness of PSA testing now years after it's debut.

I'm not saying Psa testing should stop but that there are valid reasons for Dr Albins and other noted doctors similar views on it.

tarhoosier
Regular Member


Date Joined Mar 2010
Total Posts : 487
   Posted 3/10/2011 10:52 AM (GMT -6)   
If Dr. Albin had discovered an equivalent serum antigen for breast cancer he would be a Nobel winner and King of the World. And richer than Croesus. Researchers for every lethal cancer would give their body parts for such a valuable marker. That is the context I use to discuss the value of psa.

ralfinaz
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2011
Total Posts : 735
   Posted 3/10/2011 12:02 PM (GMT -6)   
Bill said:
“The facts are, whether we like it or not, tumour detection and it's subsequent treatment (involving many millions and millions of dollars) has increased markedly as a result of PSA testing, but has not altered in the slightest the death rate due to PCa.”

In the USA this is not accurate. From 1992 to 2007 there has been a 40% reduction in the PCa mortality rate according to SEER statistics.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/4qb9nmd

Then he said:
(2) early treatment is saving many lives but the incidence of PCa within the general population is increasing at a matching rate to the lives being saved. If the later is the case then we need to ask ourselves why the incidence of PCa would be increasing so dramatically.”

Mortality is expressed as per 100,000 population and not as per 100,000 men diagnosed.. Incidence tends to increase with more use of the PSA test. In countries where the use of PSA is higher, PCa mortality has dropped. The opposite is true in countries where the use of PSA is low. Examples:

U.S.A.'s rate is 19.8 men per 100K population

Canada's rate is 23.3

On the other hand, where PSA use is low, the trend is flat or even
increasing and more men are dying.

Sweden's rate is 54.8 men per 100K population

Norway's rate is 45.4

Switzerland's rate is 34.7

U.K.'s rate is 34.4


RalphV

Sonny3
Veteran Member


Date Joined Aug 2009
Total Posts : 2447
   Posted 3/10/2011 1:34 PM (GMT -6)   
Interesting premise and question brought up here in this thread.

Is the incidence of diagnosed PCa increasing or are just more folks being diagnosed because of the increased use of drs doing PSA testing? Just one of those stats that can go awry depending on how it is viewed.

Personally, my first indication that something was wrong was urination issues. Then came the PSA test, the DRE and finally the biopsy.

I am still battling the Pca. I seem to have one stubborn and aggressive son of a gun. On the other hand the ED is getting better and I am peeing like a 20 year old. On a lighter note I would trade peeing like a 63 yr old if I had the other aspect of a 20 yr old. LOL

Ah heck, Every Day is A Bonus. I just take them as I get them.

Sonny
60 years old - PSA 11/07 3.0 PSA 5/09 6.4
da Vinci 9/17/09
Post Surgery Pathology: GS 4+3=7
Stage: T3a
Tumor Volume 12.5% positive margin, extra-prostatic extension
30 day PSA 0.4, 50 day psa 0.53, 64 day psa 0.6
IMRT completed 1/15/10 35 treatments- 70Gy
2/23/10 Post IMRT PSA 1.0
3/22/10 PSA 1.5
4/19/10 PSA 1.2
5/22/10 PSA 1.3
8/9/10 Completed Radiation for MET
9/7/10 PSA 2.2
1/5/11 PSA 3.9

Rolerbe
Regular Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 235
   Posted 3/10/2011 4:31 PM (GMT -6)   
It is a contentious subject -- are members of the population being helped or just 'messed' with? Thanks for the data links Ralph.

"It's not what you don't know, its what you know for sure, that just ain't so" (Sam Clemens)
age 52
RALP 10/08
One nerve spared
Gleason 7 - T1c
Pre op PSA 8.2 -- first PSA ever taken at age 50 physical
Most recent PSA 0.02 (12/10)

ralfinaz
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2011
Total Posts : 735
   Posted 3/11/2011 10:58 AM (GMT -6)   
The confusion that exists about the value of the PSA test would lead to fewer men to be tested (as a preventive measure). In my previous post, for example, the use of PSA in the USA is well above the 50% figure. In the UK the reported use of PSA is 7%. The PCa mortality rates are quite different in both countries and even when “experts” in the medical field continue to ignore this difference they fail to explain these results. The attribution to better treatments ignores the fact that the PSA test provides choice and early detection leads to earlier, more treatable stages of the disease. Along with this, we continue to see too many men diagnosed with disease that has escaped the prostate and becomes more difficult to treat. Yes, we need a better, more specific marker than PSA but in the mean time let’s tell the story as it is and use the PSA test results to postpone treatment when possible and to treat it when necessary to avoid a cancer escape.

RalphV
Phoenix, Arizona
Surviving prostate cancer since 1992. RP; Orchiectomy (OUCH!)
GS (4 + 2); bilateral seminal vesicle invasion; tumor attached to rectal wall. Last PSA September, 2010: <0.1 ng/ml
Laughter is the best medicine!

Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 3/11/2011 11:16 AM (GMT -6)   
Great point Ralph,
In a presentation at our group a few weeks back it was pointed out that in 1990 about 40,000 men died of prostate cancer in the US alone. This is considered the pre-PSA era. Since that time the death rate has consistently been in decline and just last year we went over the 30,000 death mark for the first time since the PSA era began. Considering the population increase in the last 20+ years that is consistent with your 40% mark. Maybe for this doc the morbidities outweigh the lives but not for me.

Also imagine if we never had the PSA test. There would be far less diagnosis and with that far less attention and funding to find many of the life saving or life extending discoveries that have been accomplished. The PSA test in my mind, while mired in understandable controversy, is still a good tool. The best tool we have right now for early detection...

Tony
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

Treatments:
Da Vinci Surgery ~ 2/16/2007
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.
Undetectable PSA.

Blog: www.caringbridge.org/visit/tonycrispino

ralfinaz
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2011
Total Posts : 735
   Posted 3/11/2011 4:24 PM (GMT -6)   
Well-said Tony! They are working on better PCa markers. Urine tests are complementary, but until something else is shown to be more specific, PSA results need to be considered. Patients need to be better informed of what PSA can do and not do and if they and their doctors interpret results judiciously, many more men would avoid an advanced disease diagnosis.

I know Dr. Ablin for many years. He has been a speaker at the St. Joseph’s Hospital support group I facilitate since 1993 and we both are members of the AZ Prostate Cancer Task Force. He is one more voice among this group. His opposition to screening is well known, but he accepts the value of PSA testing to monitor treatment results. So at least the glass is half full…
wink
Phoenix, Arizona
Surviving prostate cancer since 1992. RP; Orchiectomy;
GS (4 + 2); bilateral seminal vesicle invasion; tumor attached to rectal wall. Last PSA September, 2010: <0.1 ng/ml
Laughter is the best medicine!

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 3/11/2011 5:26 PM (GMT -6)   
Sonny- not intended to hijack your thread which is interesting and we see the controversies...like what isn't controversial in PCa issues? I think it is worth mentioning this right now, because the thoughts on PSa being our major player tool in the assessment of the disease, let's look at this.
 
 This abstract is of significance that you would have to read, I can only access the short abstract for the weblink...but in a presentation I did see some of the further pages on this. In those secondardy pages: listed pathology found gene types P53 (and tons of other ones)....followed across the page by known drugs that work specifically on those PCa types (seems unbelievable but is in Dr. Bonkhoff's article...he is the world's best pathologist on PCa (apparently) and has been mentioned as such by Dr. Strum even years ago. This information is very important and going to become more important and well known to match the person genetic reasons for their PCa and perhaps via drugs and future vaccines and other modalities...have a more precise way to deal with it. Instead of the shotgun approach of standard HT therapies.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pros.21042/abstract   (the short version, if you are a member you can access the full version...any docs in the house???)

Post Edited (zufus) : 3/11/2011 4:43:16 PM (GMT-7)


mycroft
Regular Member


Date Joined Oct 2010
Total Posts : 54
   Posted 3/11/2011 6:11 PM (GMT -6)   
ralfinaz said...


Bill said:
“The facts are, whether we like it or not, tumour detection and it's (sic: its) subsequent treatment (involving many millions and millions of dollars) has increased markedly as a result of PSA testing, but has not altered in the slightest the death rate due to PCa.”

In the USA this is not accurate. From 1992 to 2007 there has been a 40% reduction in the PCa mortality rate according to SEER statistics.
Source: http://tinyurl.com/4qb9nmd

Then he said:
(2) early treatment is saving many lives but the incidence of PCa within the general population is increasing at a matching rate to the lives being saved. If the later is the case then we need to ask ourselves why the incidence of PCa would be increasing so dramatically.”

Mortality is expressed as per 100,000 population and not as per 100,000 men diagnosed.. Incidence tends to increase with more use of the PSA test. In countries where the use of PSA is higher, PCa mortality has dropped. The opposite is true in countries where the use of PSA is low. Examples:

U.S.A.'s rate is 19.8 men per 100K population

Canada's rate is 23.3

On the other hand, where PSA use is low, the trend is flat or even
increasing and more men are dying.

Sweden's rate is 54.8 men per 100K population

Norway's rate is 45.4

Switzerland's rate is 34.7

U.K.'s rate is 34.4


RalphV


I thank RV for posting in a better manner what I would have posted if he hadn't beaten me to it tongue

All I can add is the following quotation from one of the best and brightest PCa oncologists:

"With all of the talk about the hazards of PC diagnosis and
unnecessary treatment, the PSA remains, without any doubt, the best
and most useful biomarker for a common malignancy in the history of
medicine. The problem, dear Brutus, lies within the lack of
perspective of the physicians who abuse the tool or are not sensitive
to the understanding of biology and whether or not invasive
interventions are called for. It is the typical "bull in the China
shop" approach of many of the "scientific" community that screws up
the distinction between the message and the messenger..... So, whatever you do,
say so many doctors, don't order a PSA since a diagnosis of PC may
occur and a physician may remove your prostate or give you radiation
or something else that can harm you.

"The key is to use this outstanding biomarker in the CONTEXT of the
patient's biological milieu. This is not something that is common in
the American landscape. Context is a foreign phenomenon."
--Stephen B. Strum, MD
Medical Oncologist
PCa Specialist
Dx 2004 at 67 yoa: Extensive Gleason 9 + Gleason 8.

Uro wanted to do cryotherapy, which I would have declined had I known anything. It failed, except I was rendered totally impotent; the only thing that worked as advertised.

IMRT + Lupron.

Studied PCa extensively.

Fired rad onc, who refused to read Dr. Strum's evaluation of my case.

Hired med onc. Have been on IADT since 2006.

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25380
   Posted 3/11/2011 8:15 PM (GMT -6)   
ralph and tony: i agree with both of your posts and counter posts on the subject, much better than i could have said.

even though the death's in the u.s. may be in the 30k range, i wonder if these anti-psa testing experts would feel so warm and cozy in their smugness, if they or a close loved one was among the 30,000?

every life is important to me, and of equal value.

david in sc
Age: 58, 56 dx, PSA: 7/07 5.8, 10/08 16.3
3rd Biopsy: 9/08 7 of 7 Positive, 40-90%, Gleason 4+3
open RP: 11/08, on catheters for 101 days
Path Rpt: Gleason 3+4, pT2c, 42g, 20% cancer, 1 pos marg
Incont & ED: None
Post Surgery PSA: 2/09 .05,5/09 .1, 6/09 .11. 8/09 .16
Post SRT PSA: 1/10 .12, 4/8 .04, 8/6 .06 2/11 1.24
Latest: 6 Corr Surgeries to Bladder Neck, SP Catheter since 10/1/9, SRT 39 Sess/72 gy ended 11/09, 21 Catheters, Ileal Conduit Surgery 9/10,

zufus
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 3149
   Posted 3/12/2011 6:02 AM (GMT -6)   
Mycroft/Ralph/Tony- I see Dr. Strum wrote that info you have Mycroft...I think in reading that and the PSa controversies one can see just how wild PCa treatments, choices, and assessments and what they are, it is the wild west phase is a possible comparison.

An38 found a better weblink to Bonkhoff information-Thank You- (this is still not all I saw in a presentation):

http://www.prostapath.org/download/prognostic-predictive-markers.pdf                         (this pathologist is ahead of the rest)- has some photos to see too....

Save your biopsies patho-slides,  they usually are stored for 10-15 yrs.+, call your doc and take possession of them, perhaps. This genetic information is going to be more and more usual in selective treatments, tailored to the patients real issues.

Post Edited (zufus) : 3/12/2011 5:06:50 AM (GMT-7)


ralfinaz
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2011
Total Posts : 735
   Posted 3/12/2011 10:05 AM (GMT -6)   
Hi Zufus,
Thanks for the Bonkhoff link. No question there is a confused PCa world out there.
What really bothers me is that I currently meet tons of men diagnosed with advanced disease and the word from the “experts” is that PSA testing is finding too many cancers that “will never develop into clinical disease” (how they know this is a mystery and never explained). The net result will be that as men are living longer and death from other comorbidities improve; avoiding PSA testing will cause an increase in PCa deaths. PCa is already the second cause of cancer death in men and men continue to be apathetic about being well informed. Hey, why worry?
Phoenix, Arizona
Surviving prostate cancer since 1992. RP; Orchiectomy;
GS (4 + 2); bilateral seminal vesicle invasion; tumor attached to rectal wall. Last PSA September, 2010: <0.1 ng/ml
Laughter is the best medicine!
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
26 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
Forum Information
Currently it is Friday, June 22, 2018 9:29 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,974,444 posts in 326,176 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 161253 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, bree.
424 Guest(s), 11 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
SantaZia, mattamx, GoBucks, summer16, samster, getting by, rancherdave, ChickenArise, shanna j, AustenFan, straydog