Re: Delayed Treatments for Prostate Cancer

Are you talking about,
"Incidence of Initial Local Therapy Among Men With Lower-Risk Prostate
Cancer in the United States " ?

All that that article finds is that we are overtreating some men with low
grade prostate cancer - something which we all know already. But until we
have a way to find out which men will die of prostate cancer and which ones
will die of something else, overtreating is far better than not treating.

That must be the article you're talking about, since it's the only one from
August that discusses this issue. That study is just another (of many many
many) that is data mining from the SEER database. Their paper has
surprisingly little data in it. It just points out that we, as a country,
are probably treating some men - particularly younger men with low risk
disease. Of course, younger guys are also the perfect age group to treat
surgically since a 55 year old man has almost 30 years left of life
expenctancy - and if the prostate is left to grow, it may well end up
killing him.

The authors even admit they have, essentially, nothing of substance. They
state, "Given the substantial body of evidence supporting expectant
management as an evidence based option for the initial treatment of men with
lower risk prostate cancers, our data highlight the need to better define
potential catalysts and barriers to the use of initial expectant management
among CAREFULLY SELECTED PATIENTS [emphasis added] with new diagnosed
prostate cancer"

Uh huh... riiiight. There should have been an editorial reply of "no ***
Sherlock". And just how does one "carefully select" these patients? Ah,
why with a crystal ball of course. "You, Mr. S, will die of a heart attack
in 9 years so no need to deal with your low risk prostate cancer right now.
But you, Mr. L, will live a long and healthy life if we operate on your
prostate before it goes metastatic".

Sigh. There's nothing new in this article. Nothing.



"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6ACEg.4593$Sn3.4339@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:BuwEg.901334$084.249002@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6TvEg.4542$Sn3.1612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nEuEg.901089$084.305642@xxxxxxxxxxxx


"George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mIsEg.6405$Qf.4753@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With news reports out that the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute
has
found that delayed intervention for prostate cancer is better than
overtreatment, links to the August 16 journal site require you to
PAY
for
the article. Has anyone posting here paid or has a university
subscription
to the journal? What about some details? News reports are pretty
bad
on
the details. The fee is $28 for viewing for 1 day. Since authors
do
not
get paid for writing for these journals, and since most of the
research
is
paid for by the taxpayers in the first place, it is a disgrace that
the
public cannot even read publically-paid-for research.

Does anyone here have access to the article and wants to post some
details?
I hope that these rip-off journals go out of business with the Feds
trying
to make the research they pay for in the first place available to
the
public
without having to pay $28 just to peek. Is it another medical
disgrace.

link or specifics of publication?

The mortality rate from prostate cancer interventions is exceedingly
low
so
your above claim is likely to a misunderstanding or just bad data.

Read the article before discussing it you fool.

Gladly. Reference?



It is already mentioned above. ABC News last night had a story too. I
plan
to get the article today in hard copy from, shall we say, children in the
industry.

----

As for your complaining about having to pay for things - this *** isn't
free George. Lay people will eventually get the watered down and dumbed
down version, but if you want to be up to date on cutting edge information
with medical journals, pay up. The research is costly, the publications,
the review process, everything - it is an expensive operation.

------

The authors get NOTHING for their articles, as you know, and nearly all of
it paid for by government. In case you have not been keeping up with the
current facts, government is now putting into place agreements that
paid-for
research MUST be have public access. Journals make money off the author's
work and pay nothing but get great profits. Review is NOT expensive; it
is
done by unpaid volunteers. And publication in hard copy is not very
expensive either. A huge journal like Social Forces (600 pages 4 times a
year) costs $23 on a cost basis, and yes, I know, I was the
secretary/treasurer of a group which provides the journal as a membership
right and know costs. The owners of journals make a fortune, but they
do
NOT sponsor research. Please stop writing about things you know nothing
of.




.