When I see this sort of story from a news outlet reporting on the results of some research study I generally go a'Googling to find the actual paper, or at least an abstract. Media reports always seem to leave out significant details such as selection criteria or actual, numeric results. So I look for the actual study. In this case I can't seem to find it.
This is particularly frustrating in this case because the writeup is rather vague but, nevertheless, manages to contradict itself.
Near the beginning, the story said...
The Royal Marsden study involved 1,400 men being treated for prostate cancer. Half were given immediate radiotherapy, which until now has been standard treatment to prevent the return of disease. The rest were monitored and only given radiotherapy if there were signs that disease had returned. [ emphasis mine]
but in the concluding paragraphs
This is a comprehensive study which shows that men with prostate cancer who have had a prostatectomy do not benefit from additional radiotherapy unless their PSA begins to rise – a signal that the cancer may be returning. It confirms that the standard treatment pathway for men who chose surgery in the UK is the right one.
If anyone can find the study they are talking about
, post a link.
65 Slow PSA rise 2007-2012: 1.4=>8
4 bxs 2010-2012: 1&2 neg, 3 pos 1/14 6(3+3) 3-4% (2nd
opn. 7(3+4)), 4 neg
DaVinci 6/14/12. "some" nerve sparing on left
Path: pT3a pN0 R1 GS9(4+5)
Pos margins on rt
24 mo ADT3 7/12 - 7/14
Adj IMRT 66.6 Gy 10/17/12-12/13/12
8/2012-3/2015: Incont., Trimix, VED, PSA<0.015.
AUS & IPP installed 3/5/2015Forum Moderator - Not a medical professional