Yeah, as I said, the initial choice of words can lead to misinterpretation or be misleading.
Case in point (there are several here to choose from):
Or are they saying that the damage from over treatment still outweighs the benefit from finding the very few cases that will have progressed to the point that it’s incurable?
This statement seems to be a complete misuinderstanding of the basic fundamentals of Active Surveillance/Active Treatment for low risk cases. It’s the ol’ “throw ‘em under the bus” obfuscation. Let’s clarify this dangerous one:
Immediate, active treatment for men initially diagnosed with low-risk disease does not—repeating, DOES NOT—guarantee cure. There is a small percentage of these men who’s case progresses
to BCR (see a) and b) from my previous post), metastasis, and eventual death. That’s right…death. Initially diagnosed with low-risk.
And gues what, there is also a small percentage of men with the SAME type of initially diagnosed low-risk disease who go initially onto AS, and their case progresses
to BCR (see a) and b) from my previous post), metastasis, and eventual death. But guess what…those precentages are the same. Treatment or no treatment, the percentages are the SAME. What’s, therefore, the so-called “benefit
” you speak of?
Words are important...
Post Edited (NKinney) : 11/19/2017 11:31:36 AM (GMT-7)