From: mycroftscj@earthlink.net (Stephen Jordan)
On February 20, Leonard Evens wrote:
Quoting in pertinent part something posted by Curtis Palmer:

Men middle-aged and older routinely get blood tests for
prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, to screen for prostate cancer.
However, PSA testing has shortcomings: many men with elevated PSAs don't
have prostate cancer and undergo unnecessary biopsies, which can cause
infertility, incontinence, and impotence.

He replied:

The only way a biopsy could cause such side effects is if cancer is
detected and is treated by surgery or radiation.   So this is not
talking about unnecessary biopsies but rather "unnecessary" treatment.
True, and the quote is also stunning in its ignorance. It has the
potential to mislead a man who is uncertain about having a biopsy to
decide against it for the wrong reasons. So it's dangerous, too.
I'd love to see the original citation. This has the look of some
reporter's interpretation.
Curtis?
Regards,
Steve J
===============

hi steve - i want to point out that i just report the articles, not
write them.  people need to know what is being said and by whom, which
is why i try to leave the tags on the article in case there is any
doubt.

sometimes, i will get people who want to kill the messager instead of
looking at the article.  but you ask me what i thought of this article,
so here is my thoughts.

the information about a biopsy causing these problems could happen.
everything has a risk.  but years ago, they didn't have the modern tools
to focus where to stick the needles, and let's face it, shooting a
needle into an organ could definitely cause problems.  for example - the
erectile nerves are on the bottom side of the prostate - the same side
that the biopsy needles has to pass through to reach the prostate.

my mother died from a routine heart cath. procedure and to this day,
they don't know why.  everything was checked and rechecked, but that
doesn't alter the fact that she's dead.  it is a very real, cold hard
fact of life.  everything has a risk.  she was told up front that there
was less than a 1% chance of anything could go wrong, and the doctor
said that i've done thousands of them and never lost a patient yet.  but
this time he lost one - my mother.

so, in response to the article, that statement could be true.  that
little tiny per cent that something could go wrong.  where the needle
missed it's mark and hit something that shouldn't have been growing
there - a nerve - for example.

but this is also where they skew the facts.  the writer has not done the
homework needed to point out a clear picture of what the article was
saying.

my reason for posting this article for not for what i'm discussing, but
for this reason.............thymosin ß15, a protein that stimulates
cell migration and promotes metastasis in prostate cancer. Unlike PSA,
it is produced almost exclusively by cancer cells, and is detectable in
urine.  When PSA and thymosin ß15 were combined, the combination
detected prostate cancer more often than PSA testing alone, with far
fewer false-positives.

now to me, that is a direction we ought to be looking into.

while each one of us opt for the treatment they think is best for them,
i chose mine.  but when i posted my concerns about the very possibility
of having a failed RP when i had no positive margins or S.V.
involvement, and a .01 of psa rise, some think that i'm being overly
concerned.

and i believe in respecting each and everyone's right to their opinion.
but make no mistake,  when your surgeon is telling you that he has
concern for your .01 rise and spends ten minutes explaining why, i
listened.  

i understand that the path i'm taking is a virgin one here.  to boldly
go where no man is going.  to take such an active approach and getting
the jump on the possibility of a failed RP.  but at what point do you
get worried?  there are four people in the same boat as myself and one
of them is a doctor and he's getting the same type answers that i am.  

here' one for you.  if a psa test has been proven and verified to be
true because that is the sole reason we had learned to trust a test -
ANY TEST.  it has to check what it is suppose to check for - the
validity,  and it has to do it each and every time - to be dependable.
doesn't make any difference if you have having a sugar test ran, T
check, liver levels, or a psa.  we should be able to trust those
findings.  yet, there has been many a post and lots of ink spend on
whether or not psa tests are any good at finding prostate cancer.  
the doctor had his blood sent to one lab who can do the psa test into
the thousandths and he sent it to the other lab that has been doing his
psa work.  there was quite a difference between the numbers and when he
ask how, he was told that he should stick with one lab.  

do you know how stupid this is???  can you possibly imagine that you
being told when you bought a car to stick with shell gas only?  or that
you had to buy your gas at X gas station because they sell you their
measure of one gallon,  or you have to buy your meat at one particular
store because they sell the meat by their measure of a pound.  so, why
do we accept this type of variable in a psa test?

and the knowledge after the RP and psa levels is just as bad.  my own
provider nurse told me that a .05 reading was great because i could go
all the way up to 4.0 before it was consider a problem........and she
knew i had the RP!!!!  

but getting back to your comment steve - This has the look of some
reporter's interpretation.   i agree.  the person who writes the article
is usually not the person who is doing the research.

~ curtis

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