NYT: PSA saves few lives

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Gfunk6

And to think . . . I hesitated
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
4,669
Reaction score
5,099
These studies stress OS but neglect to mention the local/distant morbidity associated with untreated prostate cancer. It's a shame the NYT article doesn't bring this up.

When the post-prostatectomy XRT studies first came out, the data for OS wasn't there but the evidence for decreased hormonal therapy usage and decreased metastatic disease was. An argument can be made for treating prostate cancer even if there is not an impact on survival. The morbidity (both physiologic and psychosocial) of bone metastases and that of androgen deprivation in men should not be trivialized, let alone be completely ignored.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
Until indolent and aggressive prostate Ca can be reliable distinguished, treating early localized disease makes sense in effort to avoid hormonal therapy.
 
It's a shame the NYT article doesn't bring this up.

Clearly the NYT has targeted radiation and things related as someone there is clearly unhappy with the lack of healthcare reform. That being said, the true shame comes from the editorial staff and reviewers at NEJM.

"Rates of screening in the control group increased from 40% in the first year to 52% in the sixth year for PSA testing and ranged from 41 to 46% for digital rectal examination." '

That is clearly some significant contamination, when on an intention to treat analysis jacks up everything. I mean really, they might as well have enrolled 50% women and said "see PSA screening doesn't provide any benefit"
 
Top