Is extending the life of a PCa patient statistically ignored?

Yea it's more on the USPSTF formal recommendation on screening for PCa...

I have asked a few doctors and other advocates if they know that treating PCa extends lives. It's a consensus that treating PCa can save or extend lives. Such being the case, the studies cited and such indicate the effects of screening as they pertain to prostate cancer specific mortality. They cite the differences in a screening category versus a non-screening category and the numbers are small. But we know this fact ~ men are living longer and longer with PCa. If in ten years I die of PCa, statistically it would be no different than if I had never been screened at all and died tomorrow. The ruling would be that screening did not save my life.

I recently had a discussion with my good "down under" friend and advocate Terry Herbert (owner of the yananow.net website) about what is "cure" or what is "saving a life"? The fact was that I hadn't really thought much about it or the significance of it. Well to me cure is dying of something else. And saving a life is living longer by changing the course of direction of an ailment.

But it is never broken out in the studies I have read with one exception: drug trials on the terminally ill. But we don't know what effect early detection has specifically on the class of patient that still dies of the disease but lived longer because he was given a fighting chance. But statistically ~ he is just one peg count in the not saved column...

Just saying'

Tony

Amen, Tony
It would be interesting to see how long PC diagnosed men are surviving based on screening, and provide some statistics regarding that.
To me, all of the symptoms that I have suffered will have been worth it if I live 10-20 years longer than I would have, even if I still end up dying of PC and become one of the men that treatment never helped.

This is a reasonable discussion. The unequivocal and simple definition of success for any treatment, drug, device, condition, or disease is overall survival. No confusion and impossible to fudge numbers or mislead. Our disease does not truly work in such a way. Our disease has been described for decades as one that "he dies with and not from". It has always been true that prostate cancer is actually a set of diseases with G6 or less being different from G8+ and G7 an intermediate stage. Each following its own etiology and pattern of treatment. It is certainly reasonable to have differing definitions of success in treatment of these two conditions. Until Donald Gleason published his work doctors did not even know which pattern of our disease they were diagnosing and treating.
I think it fully rational to have differing definitions of success. These could include delayed metastasis, time to progression, time to death, years of life added, and perhaps a few others. Defining success for a G9 systemic disease case on the same basis as a G6, <5% of one core disease is pointless.

Valid question G6,
We do know that men are living longer as a result of better drugs and life style changes after a diagnosis of prostate cancer. I mention life style changes as a valid argument that is a benefit to being diagnosed which won't happen is the PSA test is skipped. How many times here have we heard of guys changing their dietary habits right here at HW? That probably does not happen if they feel no need to be healthier. It doesn't show up anywhere in the prostate cancer statistics how men also do good things post diagnosis. But back to extending lives ~ we have definite data available when we see studies on Abiraterone, or Provenge, or Taxotere that men are living longer in the studies that are released that result in a new product release. We also know that dealing with early stage high risk disease increases longevity versus not treating it through conventional means. Even true with G6 but apparently to lesser degree. But many times these G6 Dx's result in more frequent visits to the gym or a man dropping a red meat intake and taking on a diet high in fiber and fish or even Vegan. You won't see prostate specific mortality numbers but when will we see the studies that prove that men who after Dx make life style changes that increase longevity by reducing other health risk factors?

One can easily make an argument that a diagnosis of cancer can be a good thing. If the cancer doesn't kill you but scares you into doing what you should have been doing all along, then I'd call that a win win situation.

Tony