Re: Medical Research-Evidence


"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:WbQ9g.2525$y4.2273@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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You're using outdated information.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).

Even if the results get no better than they are now, their is a signficant
difference, clincally and statistically.

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?

Of course. If I recall, there we no reported deaths. I'm at an institution
that does about 5-10 per week and I can't recall the last time we had a
mortality from this surgery. But yes, mortality was included and should
always be inlcuded in such outcomes studies.

As for believing the data, I'd hope you would believe, since it was merely
an extension of a study that you believed enough to post a link to.

The American studies

Are not done yet.

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.

FACT:
The Euro study completed enrollment in 1999. PIVOT just completed
enrollment 2 or 3 years ago. The data are far too immature and won't be
ready for a few more years.

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.

First, there is more to progress than survival. The ability to treat the
crippling symptoms of metastatic disease beyond cure is of major importance.
Second, prostate cancer is just one cancer, and given the indolent nature of
it and other factors it will never be the poster child for progress in
cancer. However, there are HUGE surival differences if you look at other
treated vs. untreated cancers such as bladder and kidney.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Screening" tests
    ... > that suggests you still might have prostate cancer. ... > disease and, of course, cancer. ... > cancer patients unnecessarily. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: "Screening" tests
    ... > that suggests you still might have prostate cancer. ... > disease and, of course, cancer. ... > cancer patients unnecessarily. ...
    (sci.med.prostate.prostatitis)
  • Re: A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory
    ... Every disease begins, at a cellular level, with cells becoming ... If modern medicine is so bloody marvellous, how come there are so many ... incurable chronic diseases including cancer. ... made in cancer patient longevity and mortality, childbirth mortality, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: A Faulty Medical Model: The Germ Theory
    ... Every disease begins, at a cellular level, with cells becoming acid, ... If modern medicine is so bloody marvellous, how come there are so many ... incurable chronic diseases including cancer. ... made in cancer patient longevity and mortality, childbirth mortality, ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Are the rates really going down?
    ... Breast 47.1/100,000 43.2/100,000 ... Increase in prostate cancer incidence rate is a result of increased ... Over the last week or so, the American Cancer Society has been ... In terms of the cancer mortality rates, (that is, the number of deaths per ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)