Not another threat to leave. I was frustrated, because the first 3 people in a row falsely assumed it was another thread about
overtreatment or no overtreatment. I clearly stated that since most felt there was overtreatment, then lets talk specifics from the lay people, like us, what could be done to curb overtreatment. I thought it was very clear. Have no interest in re-hashing the subject in general.
Moving on, in the hours since I was last here, got a lot of great answers and possible solutions out there. The only one I don't agree with, and just my opinion, is the renaming of G6 to a non-cancer term or name. But we have recently had a huge thread on that subject. But no reason it couldn't be on the list of possibilities.
Going back to my original thought, why not make the criteria for invasive treatment, i.e. surgery, a bit tougher to approve. Do most men with 1-2 cores, G6, let's say 5-10%, really need more than AS?
I think with more accurate testing tools, as far as indolent or no indolent, such a distinction could be made safer and easier to enact.
The only problem I have with our standard 10-12 core biopsy tool, is that it can miss some or all of a tumor, so it might be misleading. However, with some of the more advance saturation biopsies, little would be missed, and it might be more exact. My uro told me about
a year ago, of them working on 200+ microscopic core saturation biopsies. That could be interesting.
Keep em coming. Lots of good thoughts out there.
david in sc
Post Edited (Purgatory) : 5/24/2013 9:20:51 PM (GMT-6)