> Ed Friedman wrote...snip...
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Ed...Is this statement made for both initial and recurrent PCa?
>>However, for men receiving high doses of 5AR2 inhibitors, soy can definitely increase
>>bcl-2 production and thus increase the rate of cancer growth (as was observed
>>by Dr. Leibowitz and it explains the excess high Gleason scores in the PCPT).
>
> Are you aware of the published papers that have explained the PCPT
> high-Gleason artifact through sampling error?..Ron
Ed Friedman wrote...snip...
> >>However, for men receiving high doses of 5AR2 inhibitors, soy can definitely increase
> >>bcl-2 production and thus increase the rate of cancer growth (as was observed
> >>by Dr. Leibowitz and it explains the excess high Gleason scores in the PCPT).
ron wrote:
> > Are you aware of the published papers that have explained the PCPT
> > high-Gleason artifact through sampling error?..Ron
Ed responded
> I am not aware of papers explaining PCPT results as sampling error. I
> am aware of explanations that use the fact that F changes morphology to
> explain it, and an explanation that ER-beta isn't active enough (and
> suggesting soy to up the activity). I'd be interested in those references.
The morphology issue is still being debated and tested, it is not yet
resolved. Here is a reference that describes the sampling artifact
effect...Ron
J Urol. 2006 Feb;175(2):505-9; Evidence for a biopsy derived grade
artifact among larger prostate glands; Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood
G, Toi A, Evans A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A, Fleshner NE.
Ed Friedman - 26 Jan 2006 21:18 GMT
> The morphology issue is still being debated and tested, it is not yet
> resolved. Here is a reference that describes the sampling artifact
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> artifact among larger prostate glands; Kulkarni GS, Al-Azab R, Lockwood
> G, Toi A, Evans A, Trachtenberg J, Jewett MA, Finelli A, Fleshner NE.
Ron,
I just read that article - thanks for the reference. I always find your
posts intellectually challenging.
The article is interesting, but not convincing. If they are correct,
then they predict that the pathology reports will differ markedly with
the biopsy reports, and I assume that somebody would have published
about this already if that were the case.
Also, one of the main arguments they use is that if F caused high grade
Gleason scores, then they should increase in time, whereas if it is all
an artifact, then the number should be stable over time - just as it was
observed. However, they don't even consider F + diet (e.g. soy), which
would also be stable over time, assuming diets are not changing that
much. Also, if the diet is not responsible, then you have to come up
with an explanation as to why other researchers aren't replicating Dr.
Leibowitz's results.
Ed Friedman