Er DEFCON 1, I'd like it to be 5...

That's a short, relevant, article which, since it's voluntarily posted
on the web, is available for not-commercial reprint if properly
credited. If we let trolls run the show, we lose. Besides, the A.P. is
as blatantly slanted as news services get, so I don't care if they lose
two cents:

From the A.P. via the Baltimore Sun (Paul's link):

" Gene combinations found to raise prostate cancer risk

Associated Press
    January 17, 2008

Scientists have found that a combination of five gene variants sharply
raises the risk of getting prostate cancer. Added to family history, the
genes accounted for nearly half of all cases in a study of Swedish men.

The discovery is remarkable not just for the big portion of cases it
might explain, but also because looking at combinations rather than
single genes might help solve the mystery of many complex diseases such
as cancer and diabetes that are thought to involve multiple genes or
interactions between them.

"It gives us a new way of looking at genetic risk factors," said Dr.
Teri Manolio of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

Unfortunately, the markers do not help doctors tell which cancers need
treatment, only whether a man is likely to develop one.

This study should spur more research, particularly in African-Americans,
who have a higher incidence of prostate cancer, said Dr. Howard Sandler,
a cancer specialist at the University of Michigan and spokesman for the
American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The study was led by doctors at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem,
N.C., and involved the Johns Hopkins University and the Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm. Results were published online yesterday by The
New England Journal of Medicine. "

Because many other newspapers printed their on versions of the AP
article, some going on to analyze it and point out its flaws. It would
thus behoove us to go to the horse's mouth -- NEJM in this case -- at
http://tinyurl.com/2skmjo .

I.P.

I read the article about the study on the front page of the NY Times by
Gina Kolata.  Apparently the researchers are ready to sell you for $300
a DNA analysis which will tell you how many of the relevant genes you
have.   That can range from 1 to 5.  If I remember correctly, if you
have 4 or 5, you risk of prostate cancer is doubled, but only 2 percent
of men have that many.  More men  have only one of the five, but their
increased risk is much less.

Kolata annoyed me as usual by confusing the common occurrence of
prostate cancer as measured at autopsy with the incidence of clinical
diagnosable prostate cancer.   She rightly says that men who live long
enough are very likely to "have" prostate cancer in the sense that it
would be discovered if they were autopsied, and that the great bulk of
those men never would be bothered by it while alive.   She also says
that doctors tend to treat prostate cancer when they find it, which
suggests that the great bulk of cancers which are treated would never
have bothered the men involved.  The point of course is that the great
bulk of indolent prostate cancers are never diagnosed, despite the use
of regular testing.  There is a big difference between having an
indolent cancer which never rises to the level of being clinically
detectable and one which is actually diagnosed because of PSA rise or DRE.

Certainly prostate cancer is over treated, but no one knows what the
exact proportion is.  Estimates range from 15 percent on up. Also, the
statement that doctors treat prostate cancer whenever they find it is an
exaggeration.  They don't usually treat cancers in men with an expected
lifetime of less that 10 years. . Also, men with longer expected
lifetimes whose tumors are small and non-aggressive are increasingly
being put on expectant management.  Also, aggressive measures are not
usually not used if the likelihood of metastasis except in special cases.

You don't have to be a genius to understand the distinction;  you just
need to be able to count and apply basic logic.  Kolata's undergraduate
degree was in mathematics, so she should know better.