 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2004PCa Diagostic Trend?
Out of curiosity, I have been trying to keep track of the PSA, Gleason Scores, and ages as reported by the members when they join. I sorted them by the treatment dates and came up with some very interesting information. The methodology is far from industry standards. Therefore, I provide no analysis. But, I still find it intersting. Below are the year, average gleason reported for that year, and average age. 1996 8.0 67.3 1997 8.0 69.5 1998 8.0 60.0 1999 7.4 55.4 2000 7.1 57.3 2001 7.4 59.5 2002 6.9 54.2 2003 6.8 56.2 2004 6.0 56.8  SignatureWishing you a Happy New Year Prostate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 PSA .1 .1 .1 .3 .4 .8 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 Erection 05/12/2003 @ 48 Begin Lupron 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .1 Hi Steve, Do you mean gleason or PSA test. I thought a gleason is a 3+4 or 2+3 ? A PSA is one number. 3.4 4.0 6.0 Interesting study....John Loomis > Out of curiosity, I have been trying to keep track of the PSA, Gleason > Scores, and ages as reported by the members when they join. I sorted them [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 2003 6.8 56.2 > 2004 6.0 56.8 I meant Gleason, but should have qualified that it is an average of the total Gleason score and expressed to the first decimal, e.g.; the average of 3+3=6, 3+4=7, and 4+4=8 would have been expressed as 7.0. Averages of PSA were blown out of the water by relatively few extraordinary high PSAs. > Hi Steve, Do you mean gleason or PSA test. I thought a gleason is a 3+4 or > 2+3 ? A PSA is one number. 3.4 4.0 6.0 > Interesting study....John Loomis > > Out of curiosity, I have been trying to keep track of the PSA, Gleason > > Scores, and ages as reported by the members when they join. I sorted them [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > 2003 6.8 56.2 > > 2004 6.0 56.8 > I meant Gleason, but should have qualified that it is an average of the > total Gleason score and expressed to the first decimal, e.g.; the average of > 3+3=6, 3+4=7, and 4+4=8 would have been expressed as 7.0. > > Averages of PSA were blown out of the water by relatively few extraordinary > high PSAs. Good work, Steve. Other ways to handle a variable like PSA that can range over several orders of magnitude would be to use the median (50 % above/below), or to use the log-mean. I expect that, handled that way, the PSAs would show similar downward trends. Ernie hi steve & everyone, i believe that the gleason RATING is expressed as 3+3 and the gleason SCORE is the sum of these two. i think that if i'm right and this was more well known then things might be just a tad less confusing. yet when you think about it, you get diagnosed with PC, then make a mad dash to learn as much about it as you can in a very short time. i think the average time from a biopsy to treatment is about 5 weeks. my doctor said it should be no longer than that. during this time you need to learn all this stuff under pressure to make a choice in treatment. it seems only after do; you go back and learn everything. it seems that prostate cancer awareness has some catching up to do to be equal to breast cancer awareness. only then will many know many of these definitions before they need to. greg > Other ways to handle a variable like PSA that can range over several orders > of magnitude would be to use the median (50 % above/below), or to use the > log-mean. I expect that, handled that way, the PSAs would show similar > downward trends. O.K. I tried it. Below are the average, median, and mode (where Excel would let me do a mode) on the group's PSA. Realistically, anything before 1999 or 2000 is probably too few to give reasonable credance. And, so far, there are only 4 with 2004 treatment dates. Year Average Median Mode 1996 8.3 8.3 1997 35.5 35.5 1998 542.7 9.7 1999 173.2 7.4 7.4 2000 551.6 4.9 2001 13.3 9.1 2002 109.3 5.8 6.6 2003 19.0 6.3 4.8 2004 4.3 4.5 Steve, Is there a typo (re year 2004 data) or am I reading this wrong? Bruce > Out of curiosity, I have been trying to keep track of the PSA, Gleason > Scores, and ages as reported by the members when they join. I sorted them [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 2003 6.8 56.2 > 2004 6.0 56.8 No, I did it by date of treatment. There are four in the NG planning treatment in January. > Steve, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > 2003 6.8 56.2 > > 2004 6.0 56.8 > Out of curiosity, I have been trying to keep track of the PSA, Gleason > Scores, and ages as reported by the members when they join. I sorted them [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 2002 6.9 54.2 > 2003 6.8 56.2 It is possible that there is in fact a trend downward in gleason scores. PSA testing was generally introduced in the US in the early 90s, and by 1996, it probably hadn't taken hold completely. So it is certainly possible that Gleason 6 tumors are more common today and Gleason 7 and higher less common than they were 8 years ago. Also, the average age of diagnosis could be dropping, which would be consistent with the earlier detection. But your database involves so many other factors that could confuse matters that I wouldn't consider such statistics a reliable proof of anything. > 2004 6.0 56.8 Did you get this from your crystal ball? :-) > > 2004 6.0 56.8 > > Did you get this from your crystal ball? :-) I just added John who is 57 and has a PSA of 6.0 and gets and LRP in 2004. Eerie, aint it? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.