What would Barbara do if she had breast cancer? Her statement is also
simplistic, as she has  no research to back it up.

I don't regret having my prostate removed.

Anyway , I don't think we need personal  opinions from females on this site.

Richard

his

nothing at

Barbara...What studies are you referring to?  I am aware of one study
along these lines, the Holmberg study.  In the Holmberg study, the
underlying PCa population was divided into two arms, one was treated by
RP and the other
practiced WW, and results were compared over time.  At the 6-year point

it was found that RP had reduced the rate of local progression by 63%,
reduced distant metastasis by 35%, and reduced PCa-specific deaths by
48%.  Further, the surgical branch had 14.5% less overall mortality
than those on WW.  This last difference did not test statistically
significant at 6 years.  So while it is true that, in this study at 6
years, there is no statistically significant difference in overall
mortality between surgery and "doing nothing", that is a misleading
statement given the other striking differences in disease progression
that have been observed.  Note that PCa is often a slowly progressing
disease, so it is perhaps not to surprising that a difference in
overall mortality did not test significant at 6 years into the study,
although it was certainly very significant to the extra 14.5% men still
alive in the surgical arm.  Presumably as time goes on and the
differences already seen in progression and mets increase further, the
overall mortality difference will increase further and test
significant.  On the other hand, if the study goes long enough,
eventually all men in both arms will be dead of one thing or another,
so again, surgery would not show an advantage in overall mortality.
This is the problem with overall mortality as an indicator of PCa
treatment efficacy; early on and later on in the study a statistically
significant difference may not be seen, even if there really is an
effect.  In any case, disease progression, PCa-specific and overall
mortality rates were lower in the RP arm as compared to the WW arm.

As to QOL, studies have shown that "doing nothing" impacts QOL as well.
For example, men who have RP tend to have better urinary function and
worry less than men on WW.  Of course, just how much QOL a men may be
willing to trade for longevity is an individual decision...Best wishes
and good health, Ron

Barbara,
The urology literature is a sea of doubt. You can find individual
articles supporting any position. If you keep reading, you may find
that many studies suggest ( not prove) that when enough time has
elapsed to tell what the end results are in men diagnosed at an early
stage, especially in younger men, RP will have a survival benefit. When
I was diagnosed at age 50, I decided I didn't have time to wait several
years for proof to come in. I needed to act then on my best guess about
what would be best for me. I chose surgery because I wanted to know how
much cancer I had, how bad it was, and I wanted to be cured if
possible. I wanted to take the side effects hit up front, and then
improve after that. When surgery works, it works very well. We are all
placing a big bet no matter what we do. I have enjoyed excellent
results, and would go the surgical route again if I had it to do over.
The group is not as monolithic as you think. Many guys here had other
treatments, for good reasons, and are happy with them. If the best way
of caring for PCA was established, there would be no controversy. Ergo,
there is no proof yet.
Steve U

We don't all think RP is the solution.  In fact, new reader Sisu here,
with a Gleason 7 case, is betting his very life that your reasoning is
correct.

jimhoney

"rp vs" what?

I agree that if your PSA and Gleason scores are in the Low to Medium
range, tumour is supposedly OC, you are young and healthy enough, that
RP may be a better option. (I've also observed this ng is skewed
towards Yanks who've been sold on RP as "THE GOLD STANDARD").

OTOH, I have to live with my treatment regime of ADT, XRT and HDRB,
because I'm none of the above.

WW does not seem an option IMHO, as it just defers some future therapy
in most cases.

No form of treatment guarantees a Cure, as you see quite a lot of guys
returning for Salvage Therapy of ADT and XRT, which can provide a
stop-gap in some cases, until they go into, (perish the thought),
Palliative Care.

In all cases, the Survivors suffer from a change to their QOL.
In my case it is just an added burden to an already poor QOL caused by
OA and NIDDM with all it's offshoots.

Most of us have seen a lot of stuff on the net, some good, some crap,
but could not form a conclusive opinion on any of it.

Are you just trying to jerk our flaccid lariats?

 
-- Reader to complete...
-- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake:

-- Regards

-- CC

Hi, Barb.  Welcome to our newsgroup.  The ladies of prostate cancer patients
are also welcome, regardless of the tripe they may spew forth.

The only thing simplistic here is your argument...

From: beeh2003@yahoo.com (Barbara Harris)

why do all you guys think a rp is the solution. Cut it out, and
therefore the problem is minimized.
surgery only benefits the surgeon, ie., his wallet gets fatter. i have
seen studies, showing that rp vs
do nothing at multiple stages of diagnosis, does nothing to contribute
to a longer life, but contributes to a lower
quality.
========hi barbara - first - welcome to our club.  everyone is entitled to their
opinion.

but you did ask a very pointed question and for that i will try to be as
brief in my answers.
------
first, cutting it out is not that simple.  it IS the preferred method IF
the cancer has not left the capsule.  we are fighting for our lives and
this method does offer the BEST method at THAT POINT IN TIME.

there are times when radiation offers the best option.  

there is no one size fits all when one has prostate cancer.  and it's
not an easy choice to make when you are the one who has the cancer
growing inside you.

your comment about - i have seen studies, showing that rp vs
do nothing at multiple stages of diagnosis, does nothing to contribute
to a longer life, but contributes to a lower
quality.
========> that part is probably true because you are referring to the
later stages of prostate cancer when it is no longer in a cure stage but
treatable stage.

now, may i ask you one question?  why is your interest so strong in
prostate cancer?  do you have a loved one who has it?

one thing that perhaps that needs to be stressed here is the fact that
prostate cancer is the male version of breast cancer for the female
side.  they both are hormone driven and the treatments are basically the
same.

so, my question back to you would be would you feel the same way if this
was breast cancer growing inside you and your comment being....
Cut it out, and therefore the problem is minimized.
surgery only benefits the surgeon, ie., his wallet gets fatter.

~ 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

I see that you have 9 or 10 responses to your post, but no come-backs
from you.  Anyway, without a RP nine years ago, I would now be dead.
Surgery offered the best survivability available *at that time*.

I pee straight and sex is great, so I don't see what your argument is.

I'm a survivor and I am very, very happy with the decisions my wife
and I made when I was dx.  OTOH, what would you do if your doc told
you that the tumor in your breast was malignant and was termed
"lethally aggressive"?  Herbal treatment?  Radiation?  Voodoo?  Or
have your breast removed and live?

I don't know how well you would do with just one breast, but I live
quite happily without my prostate.  And, there's no wet spot after
sex.  d;o)

Dave

  I'd be very surprised if Barbara reads any of your responses, or ever
shows up here again. Not quite a troll in the true sense of the word, but
pretty close.

Guys, there isn't a "Barbara", I think it's a ruse. It's an absurd posting.

Yeah, cut that sucker out. Guess I'm a simple kind of guy, with Gleason
7 4+3. Worked for me, 3 years later PSA still .01.

Take care,

Tom