Re: U.K. Prostate Cancer Study Questions Benefits.....


<ralphv_in_az@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1149082408.738425.146720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
George Conklin wrote:
<ralphv_in_az@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148919373.112822.80640@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The problem I see with studies such as the BJC one is the fact that in
press releases, the true nature of the study is misinterpreted and
what
comes to light is that treatments for early disease (as discovered by
screening with PSA) do not provide a survival benefit (and invariably
affect the QOL of the patient). The model does not directly account
for
age and Gleason score, which are important covariates in modelling
survival from prostate cancer.


Actually what you do below is change the subject.... I suggest you
deal
with the article posted.
RV>+++++++++>
As usual, YOU are the one not addressing the issue and running with the
ball with results that are calculated and not REAL. Garbage in, garbage
out...

To resolve this the authors went to the med lit to obtain some
survival
data in men treated conservatively. They used the Albertsen P et al
study which monitored the survival of 767 men from the Connecticut

Again, you have changed the subject. They claim 1%
progression......
RV>++++++++>
They claim 1% progression in their calculation which is an obvious
contradiction of what happened when untreated PCa follows a natural
course even for early disease. Why did they ignore THAT data in
constructing their model?

You would need to ask them. I am going to assume that a major research
article looks at more than the usual self-selected population in most
studies.


.