HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Casey's thread #2

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 2
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 8/25/2013 3:37 PM (GMT -5)

John T said...
Davidg,
UCSF AS program under Dr Pete Carrol, a urologist, has had an amazing record. In their control group which emphasizes life style changes and support not one case of progression has occurred in the 4 years since the program was started. This indicates that careful selection, continuous monitoring and lifestyle changes do work to a very high degree and lead to a much higher QOL.

John is that because Dr Carrol utilizes the 17-gene assay test for forecasting aggressiveness?
Posted 8/25/2013 7:13 PM (GMT -5)
Squirm,
I really don't know. I know he uses the low risk criteria developed by Hopkins and since it is UCSF, most likely an MRIS. The important thing is that he also has a control group meeting the same criteria for AS. The control group has the same progression rate as all other AS programs, about 30%. His other group uses diet, mediation, excersize in a way that keeps low risk cancer from progressing.
Posted 8/25/2013 7:26 PM (GMT -5)
Tony,
I'll bite and go with your recommendation of "stage O" with 1 proviso; that the commonly accepted definition of "very low risk" cancer be adhered to which is on a 12 core biopsy no more than 3 cores of g6 are found with no more than 50% involvement. If more cores have g6 then the current staging will apply. David G brought up a very good point regarding African-Americans; I don't know how this can be resolved!
Perhaps Casey will read your thread while looking for green ink to repost. I wiil
not throw a grenade or respond to his thread. I agree with his concept of "baseline" psa screening at either age 40 or 45 but cannot subscribe to his recommendation to have further psa tests on a "risk management" approach. I must admit that I like Tud's approach. Yeap, call it "routine" and use AUA criteria..It's too easy to use other terminology like non-routine to mean never..No, I'm not a trusting soul. LOL.
Bill
Posted 8/25/2013 9:10 PM (GMT -5)
Tud, you said earlier:

Anecdotal stories that each of us have do not make policy but they certainly add interesting perspective."

I strongly and respectfully disagree. In a peer to peer group such as we, it is what we have best to add, because its based on the facts of our own real life experiences. It's not based on our unprofessional interpretations of studies and medical reports, which were mostly designed for true medical professionals, doctors, etc.

Our anecdotal "stories" are facts, and collectively, they add up to a lot of real time experience, with a lot of variations between our PC journeys and experiences, and show among other things, there is so much "grey" with PC, and not so much "black and white".

If one collected and analyzed our experiences, it would make for an interesting "study" to study, and it wouldn't be based on blind numbers and calculated percentages.

Our anecdotal experiences are our main contribution, and I feel they are very important, and shouldn't be dismissed lightly. (I know you didn't say that, I am adding that remark).

David in SC
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
12