I wonder what these reports are good for and whether the expenditure is
worth the value . Certainly not for diagnosis. Does anyone use them to
determine where funds are spent?

Signature
Prostate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48
PSA .07 .05 .06
Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50)
non Illegitimi carborundum
Prostate cancer is the leading cancer among men, breast cancer the most
common cancer among women, and lung cancer the leading cause of death
for both men and women, according to the latest U.S. statistics on
cancer released Nov. 19.
The third annual report includes information on more than one
million cancer cases diagnosed in 2001 among residents of 43 states, six
metropolitan areas and the District of Columbia.
For the first time, it also includes death rates and a section on two
rare cancers, mesothelioma and Kaposi’s sarcoma. The race and
ethnicity categories also were expanded this year to include statistics
for Hispanics/Latinos. “Breaking out data by racial and ethnic
populations, we have a broader and more accurate view of our
nation’s cancer problem, how it affects our diverse population and
can intervene to combat this disease,” said HHS Secretary Tommy
Thompson.
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Leonard Evens - 28 Nov 2004 03:18 GMT
> I wonder what these reports are good for and whether the expenditure is
> worth the value . Certainly not for diagnosis. Does anyone use them to
> determine where funds are spent?
In order to treat disease, you have to understand it. The first step in
understanding these things is good statistics. And that is true
whether or not you can make a direct relation between the statistics and
practical applications.
Also, I think you are wrong about such statistics being useful in diagnosis.
In treating different cancers, a physician must know how likely it is a
patient presenting with certain symptoms has that cancer. If prostate
cancer were extreemely rare, it wouldn't make sense to consider it if
other things were much more likely. In addition, knowing that prostate
cancer is more common in certain populations lets doctors decide among
other things when to begin screening. Finally, following trends in
time, helps doctors determine how well what they are doing is working.