Re: Delayed Treatments for Prostate Cancer


"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:vIgHg.9820$Qf.4928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:he8Hg.8406$aJ.5616@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nHXGg.182$xQ1.131@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ghNGg.7533$aJ.2308@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jFBGg.116$bM.4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The issue is to what degree surgery, by any technique, is going to do
much for a patient. You point to a 3% difference over 10 years as a
major victory, even while the big studies, much delayed, are just
getting started. One has been going 10 years with no results announced
yet.

NEJM V347(11) from Sept 2002:
studied 700 men with prostate cancer. Median f/u of 6 years (not
adequate for prostate cancer studies) showed an improved disease
specific survival - a decrease from 8.9% to 4.6% which is a 48%
reduction.


So, go tell government to get rid of the PIVOT studies since
everything has been decided. 700 men? And from that pitifully small
number you are going to treat millions? Horrid.

We have the studies that we have. It's not easy to RANDOMIZE men to
treatment vs. no treatment. Only time will tell what PIVOT shows.

NEJM V352(19) from May 2005
Same group with longer followup, now out to 8 years (still not
adequate). Showed that "radical prostatectomy reduces disease specific
mortality, overall mortality, and the risks of metastasis and local
progresssion". Overall survival was improved by 22%. Not 3%...... but
22%. That was statistically and is clinically significant.


3% of a sample turns into 22% 'reduction.' A committee had to decide
what the men really died of, since there were multiple causes. Just a
few differences in committee opinion would have changed the result since
you are dealing with a small sample. You know that too, but you cannot
fool the whole world with nasty posts. I still view you as once reason
why research into female cancers is so advanced compared to men.
Neither is all that good, but women have been politically active against
attitudes like yours.

22% improvement in survival. Bitch all you want - that's what the data
shows - a 22% improvement in survival after just 8 years of followup.


Look you continually fail to realize you cannot construct life tables
with disease-specific mortality with a sample of 700 and expect stable
results. 22% is based on only 3% of the sample, with a committee having
to decide who died of what, since it was often unclear. Politics is
obviously involved too. It is pitiful that treatment procedures for
millions are based on as few as 20-25 possible deaths in a sample of 700.
You may like the results, but it is a scandal that never ceases to amaze
me. At the individual level, would you tell a patient that he had a 3%
chance in 10 years of having a better outcome of doing nothing? I doubt
it. You want the income first, the faith second, and your belief system
is in always doing something. Others might not make that choice, but as
the article on overtreatment showed, the cultural norms are always to do
something, even if it won't help. The system is set up for that, and it
is reinforced by the culture. You are a good example of faith-based
outcomes.

You're off your rocker again. You think organizing a randomized controlled
trial of 700 patients to surgery vs. no surgery is a simple thing? That's a
huge number for that kind of study, which is the best study that can be
done. We have the data that we have. We'd all like to have more more more
data on lots of things, but we don't. So we play the cards we're dealt. In
the case of prostate cancer, we have the best studies done in the world
showing a 22% improvement in overall survival with surgery vs. no surgery
after 8 years. That number will almost suredly increase with time due to
the nature of prostate cancer. That's not "faith based" that's EVIDENCE
based. Period.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alfred Cutner, Gyneacologist
    ... Referral or not it's the patients job to hammer the doctor ... have one patient to be concerned with, ... surgery, I was given 4 weeks notice before admission. ... primarily through the presence of Alfred Cutner who had no ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Alfred Cutner, Gyneacologist
    ... hence this is a fatwa against Mr. Alfred Cutner. ... Referral or not it's the patients job to hammer the doctor ... have one patient to be concerned with, ... surgery, I was given 4 weeks notice before admission. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)
  • Re: Peter Bowdit the BLATANT LIAR!
    ... Second proving that these legions can cause various ... > through oral surgery are inextricably tied to Cavitat, ... > referred this patient to coordinate treatment by a "heath food store ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: How do you select an eye surgeon for cataract surgery?
    ... patient whom you "non-recommended" having LASIK and the patient didn't ... the patient who choses NOT to have cataract surgery in most cases. ... strongly recommend against not having those treated. ... I don't recommend contact lenses either -- I examine their ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Hi guys, been awhile
    ... laparoscopic surgery minimizes surgical injury and recovers quickly ... benefits and like other such surgeries, the patient is required or forced ... to make significant lifestyle adjustments, ... voluntary lifestyle & dietary changes in the cost benefit consideration. ...
    (alt.support.chronic-pain)