Prostate Cancer Screening Doesn't Cut Death Rates: Study

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

BobCape
Regular Member


Date Joined Jun 2010
Total Posts : 416
   Posted 3/31/2011 7:56 PM (GMT -6)   

normek
Regular Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 49
   Posted 4/10/2011 9:31 AM (GMT -6)   
Ok, the study looks at death rates. Is there a study or article out there that looks at how psa screening has afftected the amount of men diagnosed with advance PC? How many men out there are happy to have all options (seeds, radiation, AS, surgery) available to them because of early psa screening. I know I am.

Fairwind
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2010
Total Posts : 3892
   Posted 4/10/2011 10:06 AM (GMT -6)   
I take these "studies" with a grain of salt when the doctors who perform them work for the government (Sweden) and they are highly motivated to control and reduce treatment costs.. Since Medicare pays for much of the prostate cancer treatment in the United States, government-sponsored studies here are also influenced by the cost of treatment..

If people who are paid to prove treatment is ineffective in reducing prostate cancer death rates are successful, huge cost savings can be realized..

On the other side of the coin, you can be SURE the Radiation Oncologists who average $550,000/year in salary, will soon trundle out studies "proving" the exact opposite...You get what you pay for...
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

davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/10/2011 10:12 AM (GMT -6)   
heard an interview discrediting this study.

don826
Veteran Member


Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 1010
   Posted 4/10/2011 10:23 AM (GMT -6)   
Last paragraph says all that needs to be said. Cancer deaths continue to decline. If the rate has remained steady it just means that more cases are being diagnosed (the bad news) but more are being cured (the good news).
 
As Mark Twain said, there are lies, dame lies, and statistics
 
Don

Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 4/10/2011 10:54 AM (GMT -6)   
Study after study keeps coming to this conclusion. Yeah it's a mass conspiracy. The fact more and more of the top rated doctors are coming to the same conclusion, must be large payoffs or government strong arm persuasion to keep costs down.

Bottom line is the drastic drop in PCa deaths did not materialize as predicted since the advent of psa testing. Why is that?

Be honest all those condemning yet another such study, would you have the same reaction pretreatment or if you never had PCa upon reading it?
There will be future studies no doubt with similar conclusions its become a trend.

Post Edited (Ziggy9) : 4/10/2011 10:02:12 AM (GMT-6)


davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/10/2011 10:55 AM (GMT -6)   
Here's a good article that deconstructs this study:

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/06/advocate-psa-screening-prostate-cancer/

reachout
Veteran Member


Date Joined May 2009
Total Posts : 739
   Posted 4/10/2011 12:11 PM (GMT -6)   
As others have noted, I love the contradiction between 1) screening doesn't cut death rates and 2) the number of prostate cancer deaths continues to decline.
Age: 66
Pre-surgery PSA: 7 tests over 2 years bounced around from 2.6 to 5.6
Biopsy 8 of 12 positive, Gleason 3+4, T2a
DaVinci August 2009, pathology Gleason 4+3, neg margins, T2c
Post-surgery PSA one year of zeros.
Continent right away.
Viagra and other pills only gave me headache
Trimix working great!

Squirm
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2008
Total Posts : 744
   Posted 4/10/2011 12:49 PM (GMT -6)   
After scanning that study, I found this :"researchers looked at all men in the Swedish city of Norrkoping who were between the ages of 50 and 69 in 1987, a total of 9,026 men."

This was before PSA screening, so what relevance is this study?

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/10/2011 1:52 PM (GMT -6)   
That was the study my Numbnuts doc quoted when he didn't check the G** D**m PSA box for the blood work for my "complete" physical at age 52! (My cholesterol and sugar was OK in case you were wondering.)

There is more to PC than just life. Try wearing pee pads for years over your stumpy wet noodle.
Had my "doc" checked my PSA 3 years earlier then maybe, we would have discovered my PCa before my PSA was 17.8!

People miss this big caveat in the study:

"However," added Sandblom, "the study was initiated more than 20 years ago, when PSA [prostate specific antigen testing] was not available and the treatment of localized prostate cancer was not as effective as it is today. I would thus not categorically advise against PSA testing based on an individual decision from a man who feels concern about prostate cancer."

Can anyone here name a male doctor on the planet who doesn't have his own PSA checked at age 50? I DON'T THINK SO.
Q.E.D.!

Jeff

By the way, my doc now checks the PSA box. I know because I secretly sent a 50 year old coworker to him for a physical. He would have had crushed nuts if he hadn't.

Post Edited (Worried Guy) : 4/10/2011 12:55:22 PM (GMT-6)


Squirm
Veteran Member


Date Joined Sep 2008
Total Posts : 744
   Posted 4/10/2011 2:23 PM (GMT -6)   
Hi Jeff, I saw that too, and pretty much just dismissed the "study".

proscapt
Veteran Member


Date Joined Aug 2010
Total Posts : 644
   Posted 4/10/2011 2:41 PM (GMT -6)   
No one can look at this chart:

*** VIEW IMAGE ***

and say screening doesn't matter.

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/10/2011 4:17 PM (GMT -6)   
Hey proscapt,

Real Data! Thanks!

Let's see how someone could maniupulate it. Hmm....

Could it be the total population decreased? No it actually increased.
Could it be diet? No the rates of obesity are rising.
Could it be improved excercise. No (see above)
Could we blame it on Obamacare? No, he didn't exist until 5 years after the study.

Could it be, oh I don't know... improved PSA testing that went from 1.0 resolution to 0.4 to 0.1? Hmmm. Let's ask a Uro if he is willing to have his first test (at age 50) done on a machine from 1990. Anyone?

What a waste of ink and electrons.

Jeff

davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/10/2011 4:20 PM (GMT -6)   
Worried Guy said...
That was the study my Numbnuts doc quoted when he didn't check the G** D**m PSA box for the blood work for my "complete" physical at age 52! (My cholesterol and sugar was OK in case you were wondering.)

There is more to PC than just life. Try wearing pee pads for years over your stumpy wet noodle.
Had my "doc" checked my PSA 3 years earlier then maybe, we would have discovered my PCa before my PSA was 17.8!

People miss this big caveat in the study:

"However," added Sandblom, "the study was initiated more than 20 years ago, when PSA [prostate specific antigen testing] was not available and the treatment of localized prostate cancer was not as effective as it is today. I would thus not categorically advise against PSA testing based on an individual decision from a man who feels concern about prostate cancer."

Can anyone here name a male doctor on the planet who doesn't have his own PSA checked at age 50? I DON'T THINK SO.
Q.E.D.!

Jeff

By the way, my doc now checks the PSA box. I know because I secretly sent a 50 year old coworker to him for a physical. He would have had crushed nuts if he hadn't.


I imagine it's 40 these days. I think 50 is old news. There are a ton of people like me in their early 40s ( i'm 40) getting this disease.

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/10/2011 4:43 PM (GMT -6)   
davidg

You're lucky you didn't go to my GP. Very lucky!

"There's a European study that shows that ..."

Jeff

davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/10/2011 5:01 PM (GMT -6)   
I am because I am terrible about having physicals. Only reason I had this physical was because I had had a very serious reaction to malaria medication during the summer of 2010, scheduled a physical for that, and figured i'd mention the urinary issues I had been experiencing for last year while I was at it. That prompted my GP to check the PSA. That led to biopsy and the rest is history.

ralfinaz
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jan 2011
Total Posts : 735
   Posted 4/10/2011 5:24 PM (GMT -6)   
The PCa death graph tells only part of the story. Mortality rate curves for the 1991- 2007 range shows a 40% reduction in mortality. This is a more accurate picture because it accounts for the 16-year population increase and male life expectancy.

Even with that unexplained death rate reduction and studies that report up to 50% reduction in deaths, “experts” continue to detract from PSA testing benefits. We now even hear that PSA use has been lower in the last few years. Without knowing it we are losing the battle…
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!
www.pcainaz.org/phpBB304

Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25393
   Posted 4/10/2011 5:34 PM (GMT -6)   
very good point, ralf
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,

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/10/2011 5:59 PM (GMT -6)   
davidg,
I am terrible too. That is why I had my first physical at 52!
The PCa at age 56 was found because I had applied for life insurace and the company required a physical with their doc. No problem. I will breeze through it. I'm in perfect health. Right?
17.8?!?! Is that good? What is supposed to be? I never had a PSA test before. MY NUMBNUTS DOC doesn't believe in it. "There is a study..."

The insurance company would not insure me, by the way. I don't know whether to love them or hate them.

Jeff PSA <0.01

reachout
Veteran Member


Date Joined May 2009
Total Posts : 739
   Posted 4/10/2011 7:14 PM (GMT -6)   
I had an argument with a physician who was of the mind that PSA testing is worthless. I asked him, what's the alternative? He said, wait until symptoms show up, then treat it. The veins on my neck must have raised and I counted to 10, and asked him, by that time, isn't it a little too late to get a cure? He quoted the study above, and complimented me on being one of the very few for whom PSA actually worked well to potentially cure prostate cancer. I finally gave up with him but the sad thing is, he counsels a lot of other men, telling them PSA testing is not worth it.
Age: 66
Pre-surgery PSA: 7 tests over 2 years bounced around from 2.6 to 5.6
Biopsy 8 of 12 positive, Gleason 3+4, T2a
DaVinci August 2009, pathology Gleason 4+3, neg margins, T2c
Post-surgery PSA one year of zeros.
Continent right away.
Viagra and other pills only gave me headache
Trimix working great!

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/10/2011 8:20 PM (GMT -6)   
Reachout,
Did you ask the two-faced *** what his PSA was? I'll bet he knew.
Jeff

davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/10/2011 8:25 PM (GMT -6)   
what are you going to do?

Eventually these guys will retire and wil be replaced with a new generation of docs that understand the benefit of such testing and empowering their patients.

Worried Guy
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2009
Total Posts : 3742
   Posted 4/11/2011 6:54 AM (GMT -6)   
Quote from davidg : "what are you going to do?"

Go to another doc! Any 50 year old who pays for a complete physical and gets a blood screening that does not include a PSA test should say 'Buh bye!" and not look back- and tell all his 40-75 year old friends.

That's what I did.

Jeff
Age: 58, Mar 35 yrs, 56 dx, PSA: 4/09 17.8 6/09 23.2
Biopsy: 6/09 7 of 12 Pos, 20-70%, Gleason 4+3 Bone, CT Neg
DaVinci RP: 7/09, U of Roch Med Ctr
Path Rpt: Glsn 3+4, pT3aNOMx, 56g, Tumor 2.5x1.8 cm both lobes and apex
EPE present, PNI extensive, Sem Ves, Vas def clear, Lymph 0/13
Incont: 200ml/day ED: Trimix
Post Surg PSA: 10/09 .04, 4/10 .04, 7/10 <0.01, 12/10 <0.01
AdVance Sling 1/10/11 Dry

davidg
Veteran Member


Date Joined Feb 2011
Total Posts : 4093
   Posted 4/11/2011 12:25 PM (GMT -6)   
yes, agreed... in a heartbeat.

Mavica
Regular Member


Date Joined Jun 2008
Total Posts : 407
   Posted 4/11/2011 12:26 PM (GMT -6)   
The person who posted the discussion started it, made no contribution to the discussion, and then walked away from it for the past two weeks. That's a sign that it wasn't seriously posted, IMO. It's a foolish, and often repeated Old Wives tale that PSA testing doesn't save lives. BS. I believe it saved mine.
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
Forum Information
Currently it is Sunday, September 23, 2018 2:57 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 3,005,884 posts in 329,278 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 161809 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, DragonM.
313 Guest(s), 5 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
HeartsinPain, Domino95, HeatherXelda, darslanaguilera, Mom2angels