It seems that there is a trend by some to find "Under-treatment" and "Under-diagnosis" the lesser of the two evils and that it's ok to lose the 1 in 50 or whatever number you choose to use, to this disease versus controlling morbidity. And such being the case the over-treatment and over-diagnosis pundits are using the early ERSPC results rather than the later release that says 1 in 24 will be saved. The only difference between the early release and the latter is just by adding three years to the study showing that at median year 12 the number "saved" improved by 50%. The early release was a median of 9 years and it actually stated that 1 in 48 was the life saving benefit of screening.
Back to my old mantra. PCa studies are historically inaccurate because they are never mature enough to measure up a twenty years disease. This is clearly the case with the studies on screening that were release 3 years ago by the "New England Journal of Medicine" that were 7 years medians (American version) and 9 years median (ERSPC version) that have been cited by the US Preventive Services Task Force in it's Grade D recommendation to end all screening in men for prostate cancer.
If you use premature data to arrive at decisions then you will get varied results over time...
Advanced Prostate Cancer at age 44 (I am 50 now)
pT3b,N0,Mx (original PSA was 19.8) EPE, PM, SVI. Gleason 4+3=7
Da Vinci Surgery ~ 2/16/2007
Adjuvant Radiation Therapy ~ IMRT Completed 8/07
Adjuvant Hormone Therapy ~ 28 months on Casodex and Lupron.
Post Edited (TC-LasVegas) : 8/24/2012 1:46:50 PM (GMT-6)