PCa testing
Califchief
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Changes in long-held recommendations for cancer screenings have left people
confused.
Not only do medical experts disagree on how and when to test patients, some
aren't sure that routine cancer screening is effective at all. Which cancer
screening test a doctor recommends, or if one is even recommended, may depend
on the philosophy to which that medical practitioner subscribes. And, in the
end, this may affect which screenings are covered by insurance.
FULL STORY AT:
<http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/26/prostate-cancer-testing-overhaul/>
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Steve Kramer
news:1264616...@fidotel.com...
> Not only do medical experts disagree on how and when to test patients,
> some
> aren't sure that routine cancer screening is effective at all. Which
> cancer
> screening test a doctor recommends, or if one is even recommended, may
> depend
> on the philosophy to which that medical practitioner subscribes. And, in
> the
> end, this may affect which screenings are covered by insurance.
-- skramer remarks
Another prepatory move to 'reduce our health costs' prior to gov'ment
takeover?
It is an absolute lie that there is 'no agreement' on testing or screening.
There is overwhelming agreement with a few worldwide spammers.
It is an absolute lie that there is 'no agreement' on treatment. The
occasional visitor to this forum could easily predict the treatment one is
about to undergo even before he sees his doctors. That treatment choice
will be based on a complicated set of data unique to that patient and
therefore there is no absolutely standard treatment regimen, but there is a
consensus based on available criteria, etc. And, it will get more muddled
in the future as we become more aware of the disease's progression and find
better ways of combatting it.
But this article is a load of crap.
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD 0.56 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.40 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA undetectable since. Next Assay 02/02/10
Illegitimati non carborundum
Gourd Dancer
a medical specialist. Case in point:
General Practitioner - well your PSA is 4.0. Let's watch it for six months
and re-test.
Urologist - well your PSA is 4.0. Let's do a biopsy and see what's going on.
Just exactly what is a "medical expert"?
The article is pure hogwash. It's intent is suspect. Sort of reminds me of
Aesop and his fable entitled, The Boy and the Nettles.
A boy was stung by a Nettle. He ran home and told his mother, saying:
Although it pains me so much, I did but touch it ever so gently. That was
just it, said his mother: which caused it to sting you. The next time you
touch a Nettle, grasp it boldly, and it will be soft as silk to your hand,
and not in the least hurt you.
I can even make a case for the Sheep and the Pig fable:
One day a shepherd discovered a fat Pig in the meadow where his Sheep were
pastured. He very quickly captured the porker, which squealed at the top of
its voice the moment the Shepherd laid his hands on it. You would have
thought, to hear the loud squealing, that the Pig was being cruelly hurt.
But in spite of its squeals and struggles to escape, the Shepherd tucked his
prize under his arm and started off to the butcher's in the market place.
The Sheep in the pasture were much astonished and amused at the Pig's
behavior, and followed the Shepherd and his charge to the pasture gate.
"What makes you squeal like that?" asked one of the Sheep. "The Shepherd
often catches and carries off one of us. But we should feel very much
ashamed to make such a terrible fuss about it like you do."
"That is all very well," replied the Pig, with a squeal and a frantic kick.
"When he catches you he is only after your wool. But he wants my bacon!
gree-ee-ee!"
GD, have you gone mad? Maybe but in the first fable the mpral is what ever
you do, do it with all your might. Be aggressive rather than passive when it
comes to prostate cancer. And, of course the second fable, it is easy to be
brave when there is no danger. Words come easy to those who do not have to
make a decision on treatment.
Gourd Dancer, in an Aesop mode today
"Califchief" <calif...@fidotel.com> wrote in message
news:1264616...@fidotel.com...
Alan Meyer
weren't making any claims about what is right or wrong about
testing but just reporting what various organizations have said,
including the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National
Cancer Institute, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the
American Cancer Society, and the American Urological Association.
If those folks aren't experts, I don't know who is.
Those organizations don't all agree with each other, and I don't
think the article says that they do. In fact, one of the themes
of the article is that experts disagree.
Personally, if I had it to do over again, I would get tested
again and I would seek treatment again. It's possible that I
didn't need it. If I were not treated in 2003, there's a good
chance I'd still be symptom free and might have remained so for
another five or even ten or more years - which would put me over
age 70 before symptoms appeared. If I die of a heart attack
before then, then I wouldn't have needed treatment. Still, it
seems to me that I made the right choice in getting treatment
and, if I had not been tested, I would never even have had a
choice.
I think there are two different perspectives that need to be
considered in the discussion of testing. One perspective is that
of the individual man who has, or may have, cancer. The other is
the perspective of the entire population of men who have or may
have cancer. The difference between those perspectives was
highlighted by the posting that safire made some time ago about
the odds of a woman under 50 getting a false positive on a
mamogram.
I believe that PSA testing definitely saves lives. But there is
a cost. I'm not talking about money, but about men who get false
positives and men who get serious, occasionally debilitating
treatment for disease that would not have changed the course of
their lives if left untreated.
I think the problem is a harder one than it sometimes appears to
be.
Alan
safire
> Personally, I thought the article was pretty accurate. They
> weren't making any claims about what is right or wrong about
> testing but just reporting what various organizations have said,
> including the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National
> Cancer Institute, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the
> American Cancer Society, and the American Urological Association.
> If those folks aren't experts, I don't know who is.
Of course the article is accurate and well-balanced. Note that only the
AUA, whose members have a financial interest in PSA testing and whose
members generally will sell you a prostatectomy "to be on the safe
side", suggests there is evidence that testing is beneficial.
>
> Those organizations don't all agree with each other, and I don't
> think the article says that they do. In fact, one of the themes
> of the article is that experts disagree.
And therefore Kramer's claim that "it is an absolute lie that there is
'no agreement' on testing or screening" is silly, but understandable
given his mental problem.
http://www.steadyhealth.com/Obesity_lowers_intelligence_t85271.html
>
> Personally, if I had it to do over again, I would get tested
> again and I would seek treatment again. It's possible that I
> didn't need it. If I were not treated in 2003, there's a good
> chance I'd still be symptom free and might have remained so for
> another five or even ten or more years - which would put me over
> age 70 before symptoms appeared. If I die of a heart attack
> before then, then I wouldn't have needed treatment. Still, it
> seems to me that I made the right choice in getting treatment
> and, if I had not been tested, I would never even have had a
> choice.
>
> I think there are two different perspectives that need to be
> considered in the discussion of testing. One perspective is that
> of the individual man who has, or may have, cancer.
But if you apply the macro probabilities to the individual having to
make a micro choice, why would it not be balancing the substantial risk
of side effects against the low probability of life extension?
Gourd Dancer
also was diagonosed with prostate cancer. Seems that his PSA went from 2.9
to 3.5 in a year. Urologist told him no worries. The next week he had a
colonscopy and because of a colon polyp that did not look good, his
Gastroenterologist sent him to MD Anderson for several scans. Good news is
that his colon is fine; bad news is that they found that he had prostate
cancer. Worse yet, the prostate cancer turned out to be Gleason 9 (5+4).
"Califchief" <calif...@fidotel.com> wrote in message
news:1264616...@fidotel.com...
Steve Kramer
news:hl02gm$14l$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> This past weekend I saw an old friend (D.V.M.) and was surprised that he
> also was diagonosed with prostate cancer. Seems that his PSA went from 2.9
> to 3.5 in a year. Urologist told him no worries.
> The prostate cancer turned out to be Gleason 9 (5+4).
This goes to the disccussion that Alan and I.P. were having about doctors.
I knew almost ten years ago that 4.0 as a standard was an old standard and
replaced by trend analysis. Why has it taken this urologist ten years to
catch up?
Gourd Dancer
on the otehr hand, my Medical Oncologist who has been in research and
academia 30 years and not private practice, wears faded Levis and tennis
shoes.......
:)
"Steve Kramer" <skr...@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:hl0s98$ccq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Steve Kramer
news:esmln55fkuv46r5tg...@4ax.com...
Nicky,
I believe we have failed to properly welcome you, though you have been
around since September.
Please tell us of your cancer.