|
|
|
|
Vol. 7, No. 1 |
Summer 2008 |
|
Jerry Bylander, Editor jerryby@cableone.net |
|
I have been
remiss in publishing this newsletter for over a year now. Just burned out. However several recent articles have rung my
bell. One such follows this letter
from your Managing Director and is authored by your Board. An article this morning ( Here is how you
use the PSA correctly: 1) In the event of a first high reading (I
think the guideline is above 4, but your doctor will know), only do a spring biopsy if the doctor feels a cancerous lump in
your prostate with his finger. Yes! The
dreaded DRE or digital rectal exam.
Your doctor may prescribe Proscar or Avodart, if I remember correctly, to reduce the prostate
and potentially reduce the PSA which is proportional to the prostate size. 2) After a suspicious PSA and no lump on the
DRE, follow the doubling time of the PSA by retesting every 6 months (or 3
months if the PSA is very high-again your doctor will know). 3) If the PSA goes up significantly, say from
4 to 6, again rely on the DRE. However
if the doubling time works out to be less than a year, more aggressive action
is required and the spring biopsy is required. Be sure to take the antibiotic the night
before and the day of the biopsy to reduce the risk of infection. 4) Then there are various decisions to be made
if prostate cancer is found in the biopsy.
If none is found continue to follow the PSA every 3 to 6 months for
high PSA values. If cancer is found,
therapy choices will be based on your age, health, heart condition, and
Gleason score. In general if you are
less than 60 and your doubling time is less than a year, you must take aggressive
action. Otherwise contact Henri (at
Hair by Henri in Have a nice summer! Prostate Cancer
Column
Sent to the Herald Democrat
(not printed) Your misleading and
potentially harmful article concerning prostate cancer Mr. Heni Plunkett,
Director, Dr. We of the USToo! Texoma Board take issue with your recent article,
"Elderly may fare worse on drugs for prostate cancer", since it is misleading and harmful.
It will mislead many of us who have prostate cancer to and cause us to
avoid life saving therapies. The writeup indicated
that therapies used in the treatment of prostate cancer, may not be effective
and cost efficient. First we note that
the reported 20% of deaths of treated men (unspecified therapies) versus the
17% deaths of untreated men is not statistically different and cannot justify
the conclusion that the treated group fared worse. In fact, lumping
the deaths from all prostate cancer causes is neither helpful nor safe. Second,
the data used to form this correlation was not analyzed by one of our nations leading
teaching medical universities. Also it was based on patient's records rather
than on controlled studies. And it lumped data from a reported six year period whereas the
standard time for making positive conclusions is a ten year period. Thirdly,
there has always been a subset of men with prostate cancer, for whom it is prudent to do nothing for their situation. The basis of this concept is that their
individual cancer is indolent, and is most likely to be very slow growing. Most likely the prostate cancer will not be
the reason for these men's death. However
men diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer systemic or metastic, will
surely see their demise directly from the prostate cancer without proper
treatment. However to conclude that all categories
of men with prostate cancer –treated or not - will have the same life
expectancy is just plain wrong. The truth
is, that for decades, the facts that the administration of
medicines in treating prostate cancer have proven to extend life and
slow disease progression is accepted world wide. In fact the pioneering
doctor who discovered the use of hormonal reduction in the setting of prostate
cancer was awarded the Nobel Prize. Prostate
cancer is a highly individualistic disease and always should be treated as
such. Any correlation about prostate
cancer that has a sweeping conclusion about therapy choice, surely can not be based on decades of extensive
research studies and publications in refereed journals. Therefore, we urge your readers to depend on their physician's recommendations and/or a second opinion where necessary, rather that upon the conclusions of an article that treats all failed first prostate cancer therapies as the same.
|
|
TOPIC: TBD - Stay Tuned to www.ustoo-texoma.org for Announcement ABOUT THE SPEAKER: TBD - Stay Tuned to www.ustoo-texoma.org
for Announcement
|
|
|
|
TOPIC: Dr.
Hilz was unable to attend due to a last minute personal emergency.
Instead Jerry, Henry and Tom led an interesting discussion following
their description of various incontinence solutions. |
|
|
|
Jerry Bylander, Editor |