Re: Medical Research-Evidence


"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5_N9g.972767$xm3.116991@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ZFN9g.565$921.247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:TpI9g.729867$084.168611@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xmt9g.2148$y4.176@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hGs9g.147553$oL.41252@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Utr9g.2106$y4.1207@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Prostate cancer treatments are being evaluated, such as the
PIVOT
study. But some going on for 10 years have yielded no results
yet,
strongly
suggesting that all current modes of treatment cure those who
would
not
die
of the disease anyway. Those who advocate PSA tests and
aggressive
treatments now claim that the best results will show up AFTER 15
years!!!
But that is another 5 years out, and then it will be raised to 20.

There is recent 10 year data showing a survival benefit of surgery
vs.
watchful waiting. It's long been known that survival benefit
studies
would
need to go out at least that far except in metastatic cases.



Here is a comment from another newsgroup:

Both Dale and George are correct.

Dale is correct in that radical prostectomy has been shown to lower
the
death rate due to prostate cancer (see the New England Journal of
Medicine article at:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/11/781).

George is correct in that radical prostectomy has been shown to have
no
significant difference over watchful waiting in overall survival (see
the New England Journal of Medicine article at:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/11/781).

Now, what do you have to add with a link?

You're using outdated information. That study had a mean followup of
only
6.2 years, which was too short for a survival study with prostate
cancer.
Allow me to refer to a followup the same study you posted above, done
with
the same patient population and the same authors, just longer
timepoints
for
data:

3 years later, a newer/better study was published in the same Journal:

"Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful Waiting in Early Prostate
Cancer",
May 12, 2005 by Bill-Axelson and Holmberg et al. (same authors, longer
followup)
This paper is *the* landmark paper for this topic in the field.

The study showed that "radical prostatectomy reduces disease-specific
mortality, overall mortality, and the risks of metastasis and local
progression".


and then the following, which is what Herman talks about allowing the
patient to make decisions:

You're welcome for the reference.

"THE ABSOLUTE REDUCTION IN THE RISK OF DEATH AFTER 10 YEARS IS
SMALL...."

The risk of death was not seen at 6 years, which was to be expected. 3
years later it was noticed - before it should have been expected to be
seen - and was both clinically and statistically significant. The more
time
that elapses, the more signficant the differences will become.


This was expected for high-dose chemotherapy for recurrent breast cancer
too, but it did not work out that way. (The so-called bone marrow
transplants).


I'm not one of those guys who advocates prostatectomy for every patient
with
prostate cancer. I think there are a large number of patients for whom
watchful waiting is appropriate. However, we can now say, conclusively,
that in the face of diagnosed prostate cancer, surgery will save lives.


Well, if you believe the data, a few. What about surgical mortality?
Did they happen to include that?

The American studies are 10 years old and have no released their data
yet. Had they found even 1% differences, they would have gone to the press
and hollared loudly. The PIVOT studies seem silent too. Why? No results.
There were a lot of other questions raised by the Scandinavian data too last
year.


The study showed 30 men dying of prostate cancer in the surgical arm
with
50
men dying of prostate cancer in the watchful waiting arm. The total
number
of deaths from other causes were 53 and 56, resepectively - so
equivalent.

For Herman - that is both statistically and clinically significant
:)

These numbers will likely to become even more disparate between the two
groups as time goes on, since that is the nature and natural history of
prostate cancer. In truth, this study found a signficant survival
advantage
a few years earlier than most had predicted.

So you can tell your poster in the other newsgroup his data is outdated
and
now you, George, have been given evidence that early intervention
prostate
cancer saves lives.

Good day.

And let me remind you a point I made earlier: the progress against
adult
cancers is SMALL.

That's an opinion, one that I don't share.


You even gave me an article which said small. What you boys do in the
medical business is inflate your egos. You are such a prime example.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Medical Research-Evidence
    ... suggesting that all current modes of treatment cure those who would ... which was too short for a survival study with prostate cancer. ... the same patient population and the same authors, ...
    (talk.politics.medicine)
  • Hormonal Therapy After Prostatectomy May Increase Cardiovascular Death
    ... Hormonal Therapy After Prostatectomy May Increase Cardiovascular ... treated for localized prostate cancer; ... Overall, 20% also received ADT. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Omega-3 is NOT a Cancer or Heart-Disease Preventive
    ... those studies showing ALA is associated with more invasive prostate ... Dietary alpha-linolenic acid is associated with reduced risk of fatal ... occurrence of prostate cancer in observational studies. ...
    (sci.med.nutrition)
  • Re: Delayed Treatments for Prostate Cancer
    ... "Incidence of Initial Local Therapy Among Men With Lower-Risk Prostate ... grade prostate cancer - something which we all know already. ... I hope that these rip-off journals go out of business with the Feds ... And publication in hard copy is not very ...
    (talk.politics.medicine)
  • Re: Saw Palmetto Warning
    ... getting some relief from Saw Palmetto will now be worried, ... Problems with Detecting Prostate Cancer? ... > was increasing dramatically even before the detection of PSA was possible. ...
    (sci.med.prostate.prostatitis)