Gerry/duke68, when you write…
Here is a notice about men on active surveillance.
" to men on AS is perpetuating—especially when coupled with an alarmist thread Subject line—the ill-informed medical journalism which hovers around the periphery of real scientific literature. Maybe you unintentionally fell victim to promoting the unprofessional half-truth found in this link without realizing it, but you’ve helped them accomplish their goals via shady ethics nonetheless. The counter on the link just incremented by one more, unfortunately.
Let’s dial it back. The article in the link summarizes:
“The researchers confirmed that active surveillance appears safe in patients at low risk and in select patients at intermediate risk, particularly those with GS 6 and PSA greater than 10 ng/ml.”
Surprised at this confirmation by the researchers, after reading such an alarmist Subject line on this thread?
Anyone feeling informed enough to pass on links at a PC support site about
PC shouldn’t be surprised, and shouldn't be thrown-off by the misleading half-truth article. An informed PC advocate will recognize that the broader, more complete findings from this ongoing study (Klotz at Sunnybrook, Univ of Toronto) are among the most widely vetted and distributed in the PC-world. The bigger surprise would be if either: a) you had never heard of Klotz’s study before, or b) you thought AS, or ANY form of cancer treatment, was risk-free. Or both.
The more valuable facts coming out of this Klotz study, which were also closely validated with a 15-year study from JHU, is that the rates of progression for men initially diagnosed with low-risk disease are statistically the SAME whether they pursue Active Surveillance or immediate treatment. A small number of the men in the AS group progressed, but the same small number of men who underwent immediate treatment also progressed…neither was risk-free; the risks of progression were the same.
While the risk of progression is the same for these two groups, but what’s different is the unnecessary suffering from side effects of an unnecessary treatment.
Was this article balanced enough to make it clear that there was no incremental risk
to AS versus immediate treatment? And that the risks of progression were the SAME?
Post Edited (JackH) : 4/12/2016 11:29:11 AM (GMT-6)