Bloomberg News
(7/18, Langreth) reports, "Surgery for prostate cancer was no better
in saving lives than observation over a 10-year period, according to one
of the first rigorous studies to compare the two approaches in American
men with early-stage disease." The results,
published in the New England Journal of Medicine, show that 10 years
after early removal of the prostate gland, "47 percent of men in the
surgery group had died, mostly from other diseases, versus 49.9 percent
who were just watched."
The Los Angeles Times
(7/19, Mestel) says the study, "which focused on cancers still
confined to the prostate, should reassure patients who want to avoid
distressing side effects of surgery -- such as urinary incontinence and
sexual dysfunction -- but still protect their lives, cancer experts
said. If embraced by patients and doctors, the new information stands to
radically change prostate cancer management in the US, where the
majority of early prostate cancers are treated aggressively with surgery
or radiation therapy."
The New York Times
(7/18) "Well" blog reports says the study "included only men with
early-stage disease, about half of whom learned of their cancer as a
result of the prostate specific antigen, or PSA."
The St. Paul Pioneer-Press
(7/19, Snowbeck) reports, "The study suggested that a subset of men
with intermediate-risk or high-risk tumors might fare better in terms of
all-cause mortality with surgical treatment; the same goes for men with
a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening score above a certain
level." However, "the study also found that adverse events within 30
days of surgery occurred in 21.4 percent of men,
including one death."
In a front-page story, the Boston Globe
(7/19, A1, Kotz) reports, "The clinical trial, performed at
Massachusetts General Hospital and elsewhere, could be a turning point,
shifting doctors toward more conservative treatment of men who are
diagnosed with prostate cancer that has not spread beyond the gland, the
authors said."
The Chicago Sun-Times
(7/19, Thomas) reports, "Lead author Dr. Timothy J. Wilt said his
study adds to a growing body of evidence that supports active
observation, particularly among men whose prostate-specific antigen
(PSA) is 10 or lower -- which means they are at low risk."
The NPR (7/19, Hensley) "Shots" blog reports, "An accompanying editorial
pointed out some shortcomings in the study, including the fact that
about one-fifth of men didn't stay in their assigned group. But it notes
that the results from" this study "and some other
trials show 'that a national focus on PSA screening and treatment for
prostate cancer may have a marginal benefit on the lifespan of men but
at a considerable cost.'"
WebMD
(7/19, Goodman) reports that "studies show that radical prostatectomy
procedures are becoming more common. A study published in June in the
Journal of Urology, for example, found the number of radical
prostatectomies roughly doubled in the US between 2004 and 2010."
Meanwhile, HealthDay
(7/19, Gray) points out that "in May, the US Preventive Services Task
Force recommended against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer. The
task force said there is a very small benefit to the test and
significant harms." However, "other expert groups, most recently the
American Society of Clinical Oncology, continue to recommend the tests,
at least for those with a life expectancy of 10 years or more."
Also covering the story are Reuters (7/19, Emery) and MedPage Today (7/19, Bankhead).
If we have early stage detection of Stage 4 prostate cancer, then many important consider many things before deciding on a treatment, that are age and general health, and other general problems that the cancer will cause. Think about the possible side effects of treatment also.
ReplyDelete