In the early 1950s Dr. Perry Hudson was a medical researcher at Columbia University in New York City. Pursuing his interest in PCa, and with approval from the university, he designed and conducted a PCa study of a large number of men in the local area. His objective was to gather data to support his theory that PCa could be cured if caught and treated early
But the study he did became mired in great controversy, both because of the way he designed it, and how he conducted it.
What he did was to enroll in his study more than 1,200 men, mostly destitute and alcoholic, living in flophouses in New York's Bowery district. He got them to participate by offering them "… a clean bed, and three square meals for a few days" along with free medical assistance should they be found to have PCa."
Biopsies were done on the subjects, with portions of their prostates removed, but apparently none of the subjects were ever told of possible complications, such as rectal lacerations. And there were other significant problems.
But the medical community at that time did not seem to be especially concerned with how this study was designed or conducted, according to the article linked at bottom below, and apparently the study was even publicized and praised in a 1958 issue of "Life" magazine, a national publication.
"It was an entirely different era," the article below quotes one authority, but also adds "…the invasiveness of this particular research was really horrendous," and "… the fact that these people, a convenient population, were used in the name of science is abhorrent.”
And this interesting comment from the Wikipedia article on this study: "… in an interview, Dr. Perry Hudson defended his experiment’s ethics. He said he felt no regret."
But the Wikipedia article also goes on to say: "… Though the Bowery study had a laudable goal — to prove that prostate cancer could be caught early and cured — it yielded little credible data."
The account of this study below makes for some troubling reading. But it also serves as an example of the controversy a cancer field study can generate, if its ethics are questionable. It is a kind of study that would surely never happen today, what with the safeguards that are surely now in place to prevent a study of its kind, along with its very troubling consequences, from ever happening again. /www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/health/medical-experiments-conducted-on-bowery-alcoholics-in-1950s.html
Chronic prostatitis (age 60 on)
BPH w/ urinary obstruction, 6/2011
Ongoing high PSA, 7/2011-12/2011
Biopsy, 12/2011: positive 3/12 (90%, 70%, 5%)
Gleason 6(3+3), T1c
No mets, PCa likely still organ contained
IMRT w/ HT (Lupron), 4/2012-6/2012
PSAs (since post-IMRT): 0.1 or lower
Post Edited (81GyGuy) : 5/7/2018 8:02:27 AM (GMT-6)