Last Updated: 2005-02-11 12:58:48 -0400 (Reuters Health)
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - In the PSA screening era, mortality rates
among most men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the United States are
no higher than those in the general population, a new analysis shows.
"The bottom line is that most men diagnosed with the disease today can
expect to live as long as, or longer than, men their age without the
disease," two editorialists comment.
The value of prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening in reducing
prostate cancer mortality is still in question, Dr. Hermann Brenner and
Dr. Volker Arndt of the German Center for Research on Aging in
Heidelberg write in the Journal of Clinical Oncology for January 20.
Widespread use of the PSA test in the US since the late 1980s means many
more men are living with a diagnosis of prostate cancer, the team points
out.
They used "the recently introduced period analysis methodology" to
evaluate 5- and 10-year survival rates for 183,484 men diagnosed with
prostate cancer between 1990 and 2000 included in the Surveillance,
Epidemiology and End Results Program (SEER) database.
Overall, relative 5-year survival rates for prostate cancer patients
were 99%, and 10-year survival rates were 95%, Drs. Brenner and Arndt
found. "That is, excess mortality compared with the general population
was as low as 1% and 5% within 5 and 10 years following diagnosis,
respectively," they explain.
For the two- thirds of men who had well or moderately differentiated
localized or regional prostate cancer, there was no excess mortality at
all.
The researchers note that it is possible that earlier diagnosis might
not in itself mean longer survival, but could indicate "mere
prolongation of the 'patient career' by advancement in diagnosis." The
question of whether PSA screening does in fact reduce mortality from
prostate cancer must be answered by large-scale clinical trials, which
are currently underway, they add.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. George Wilding and Patrick Remington
of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Wisconsin in
Madison write: "Given the many uncertainties about this disease, this
information alone will be helpful for clinicians and their patients when
discussing treatment options and when considering what life will be like
living as a prostate cancer survivor."
J Clin Oncol 2005;23:441-447.
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
James A. Honeychuck - 12 Feb 2005 09:42 GMT
It's amazing what passes for research these days. Here's a new
statistical analysis "methodology" which proves the bloody obvious: PCa
usually grows slowly.
Now some deskbound investigative reporter will pick up this story and
present it as medical advice for the individual.
jimhoney
> Last Updated: 2005-02-11 12:58:48 -0400 (Reuters Health)
>
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
> http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
ronju99 - 12 Feb 2005 11:21 GMT
Yes, but wouldn't it be a shame if 90% of us diagnosed didn't require any
treatment at all and were able to continue our quality of life without all
the side effects that we are going through now.
Ron S
Leonard Evens - 12 Feb 2005 13:29 GMT
> Yes, but wouldn't it be a shame if 90% of us diagnosed didn't require any
> treatment at all and were able to continue our quality of life without all
> the side effects that we are going through now.
> Ron S
All the evidence suggests that a 10 year time horizon is not adequate
for evaluating the effectiveness of measures designed to detect or treat
prostate cancer. Indeed, current treatment guidelines suggest not
using aggressive treatment to try to cure prostate cancer in men with an
expected lifetime of less than 10 years. So this study basically
confirms what is now the current clinical practice. It doesn't help
those of us who expect to live longer than ten years to decide what to
do when faced with a diagnosis of prostate cancer.
Also, there is a quandary here. Men with higher moderate range cancers,
such as Gleason 7, do face an increased risk. It could be true that
some Gleason 6 and lower cancers don't need to be treated, but without
screening, how do you pick out those who will benefit from treatment.
Those who argue against testing would sacrifice those of us in the
minority like myself in the hopes of avoiding unnecessary treatment for
a presumed majority.
Jim Thomas - 13 Feb 2005 06:06 GMT
I may have missed something, but I don't think that this report
differentiated between those who were diagnosed with PC and did nothing
(watchful waiting) and those that did something (surgery, radiation,
HT). Or how they were diagnosed with PC (PSA, biopsy). All of these
stats without the underlying facts are, at best, misleading.