FINALLY!

[Goofy]

Finally they get it right:

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...creening-reduces-deaths-study-finds-now-what?

Regular prostate screening reduces deaths, study finds.
By Robert Bazell, Chief Science and Health Correspondent
Men who got regular PSA blood tests were 21 percent less likely to die of prostate cancer, according to a European study published in the New England Journal of Medicine Wednesday. The new research probably won’t change the current screening guidelines for American men, but the findings could reopen the controversy -- and confusion -- over prostate cancer screening.

Maybe Chien's buddy can quit spreading such lousy advice now.....
I'm through with AOPA (14 yr. member) anyway after that nonsense.

 

[Geico266]

It is an interesting dilemma. PSA test leads to inaccurate diagnosis.

BTW, It took you this long to drop AOPA?

 

[nddons]

It is an interesting dilemma. PSA test leads to inaccurate diagnosis.

BTW, It took you this long to drop AOPA?

I don't think it leads to inaccurate diagnosis; it is a test that gives you a number, the number or movement of that number over time tells you that you may have a problem with your prostate, which may or may not be cancer. You and your doc then decide if you want a biopsy to find out with more certainty.

I think the article was addressing the "now what" question. Interestingly, it makes little mention of age. Certainly, for someone in their 70's or 80's, "watchful waiting" is an appropriate treatment for prostate cancer. Such men may likely die of something else before dying of prostate cancer.

On the other hand, PSA has enabled doctors to find the cancer in men at a much younger age. Mine was found at age 51, which is pretty young for this. For us, "watchful waiting" is a non-starter. If PC kills, it does so in a pretty ugly way. You may die, castrated, with painful bone cancer.

So, getting rid of it is a pretty attractive option, especially before it leaves the organ. Side effects suck, most resolve themselves over time, and most men can live a very normal life. Personally, I was diagnosed one year ago next week, am 7 months post-op, have undetectible PSA, and as of Monday, am no longer under my urologist's care. And I've been flying since Dr. Bruce did his magic last October. Overall, one damned bizzarre year.

 

[bbchien]

Finally they get it right:

http://vitals.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...creening-reduces-deaths-study-finds-now-what?

Regular prostate screening reduces deaths, study finds.
By Robert Bazell, Chief Science and Health Correspondent
Men who got regular PSA blood tests were 21 percent less likely to die of prostate cancer, according to a European study published in the New England Journal of Medicine Wednesday. The new research probably won’t change the current screening guidelines for American men, but the findings could reopen the controversy -- and confusion -- over prostate cancer screening.

Maybe Chien's buddy can quit spreading such lousy advice now.....
I'm through with AOPA (14 yr. member) anyway after that nonsense.

well, as most of you know with the exception of Trial expert Dr Fries, the entire board of Aviation Medical Advisors resigned, myself included.....

 

[Ghery]

I don't think it leads to inaccurate diagnosis; it is a test that gives you a number, the number or movement of that number over time tells you that you may have a problem with your prostate, which may or may not be cancer. You and your doc then decide if you want a biopsy to find out with more certainty.

I think the article was addressing the "now what" question. Interestingly, it makes little mention of age. Certainly, for someone in their 70's or 80's, "watchful waiting" is an appropriate treatment for prostate cancer. Such men may likely die of something else before dying of prostate cancer.

On the other hand, PSA has enabled doctors to find the cancer in men at a much younger age. Mine was found at age 51, which is pretty young for this. For us, "watchful waiting" is a non-starter. If PC kills, it does so in a pretty ugly way. You may die, castrated, with painful bone cancer.

So, getting rid of it is a pretty attractive option, especially before it leaves the organ. Side effects suck, most resolve themselves over time, and most men can live a very normal life. Personally, I was diagnosed one year ago next week, am 7 months post-op, have undetectible PSA, and as of Monday, am no longer under my urologist's care. And I've been flying since Dr. Bruce did his magic last October. Overall, one damned bizzarre year.

Diagnosed at age 56. PSA had gone up .75. DRE found nothing. Biopsy did. Removing it was the only option that made any sense at that age. PSA since surgery has been undetectable and I'm flying again.

 

[Matthew]

A good friend of mine was getting some extra life insurance. He had to get a physical. His PSA was well off the scale. Follow-up tests with his doc got him to get the cancer under control. He got turned down for that insurance, but that PSA flag may have saved his life.

 

[Goofy]

It is an interesting dilemma. PSA test leads to inaccurate diagnosis.

BTW, It took you this long to drop AOPA?

Saved my life at 47, not "inaccurate" at all.
Comments like this can get people hurt or worse, I'm disappointed in you!
You're welcome to continue with blinders on but, for crying out loud, don't suggest others be so foolish.

 

[DaleB]

So I'm a newbie and not familiar with AOPA politics of years gone by... were/are they advocating NOT getting PSA tests?

 

[nddons]

Saved my life at 47, not "inaccurate" at all.
Comments like this can get people hurt or worse, I'm disappointed in you!
You're welcome to continue with blinders on but, for crying out loud, don't suggest others be so foolish.

I don't think Geico was making any such suggestion. I think he was just commenting on the issue based on how he read the article, and I can see how he got that opinion. I tried to offer some clarification in post#3.

 

[Gary F]

Saved my life at 47, not "inaccurate" at all.
Comments like this can get people hurt or worse, I'm disappointed in you!
You're welcome to continue with blinders on but, for crying out loud, don't suggest others be so foolish.

One case does not prove the usefulness of any treatment or test on the general population. Unfortunately, things are not as obvious as they appear and screening tests such as PSA and mammograms are still controversial. I'm glad things worked out well for you. I have had this test a few times so I don't think it is a bad test but there are limitations which are not apparent.

 

[TMetzinger]

Didn't sound to me like the test was controversial. Sounds the the controversy is over how to treat prostate cancer, given the two types and the inability to tell the difference between them.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

 

[jbarrass]

One case does not prove the usefulness of any treatment or test on the general population. Unfortunately, things are not as obvious as they appear and screening tests such as PSA and mammograms are still controversial. I'm glad things worked out well for you. I have had this test a few times so I don't think it is a bad test but there are limitations which are not apparent.

Me too.... it's way more than one case.....47YO when diagnosed and still here. Happy and healthy.

 

[Gary F]

Me too.... it's way more than one case.....47YO when diagnosed and still here. Happy and healthy.

Didn't sound to me like the test was controversial. Sounds the the controversy is over how to treat prostate cancer, given the two types and the inability to tell the difference between them.

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk

There is controversy on the appropriate use and effectiveness of screening tests in general and PSA in particular. You are only looking at a few data points. Believe me, it is more complicated than that.

Granted, while both studies had their particular limitations, the PSA test has its own limitations. For example, an elevated PSA can be a tip-off to a lethal cancer, but it can also detect less aggressive cancer that may never cause harm. Since we don't yet have a definitive test that can tell the difference, and may not for many years, most prostate cancer experts believe that this cancer is now not only over diagnosed but also over treated.
Does the PSA test save lives -- according to the American Cancer Society, 28,000 men died from prostate cancer in 2008 -- or does it merely subject a large number of men with elevated PSAs to unnecessary surgery or radiation with side effects that can include urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary and bowel symptoms? Doctors and patients alike have always wanted to know the answer for years, and they were hoping that these randomized trials would provide them. Unfortunately, they did not. http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/prostate_disorders/JohnsHopkinsProstateDisordersHealthAlert_3005-1.html

 

[Goofy]

There is controversy on the appropriate use and effectiveness of screening tests in general and PSA in particular. You are only looking at a few data points. Believe me, it is more complicated than that.

Granted, while both studies had their particular limitations, the PSA test has its own limitations. For example, an elevated PSA can be a tip-off to a lethal cancer, but it can also detect less aggressive cancer that may never cause harm. Since we don't yet have a definitive test that can tell the difference, and may not for many years, most prostate cancer experts believe that this cancer is now not only over diagnosed but also over treated.
Does the PSA test save lives -- according to the American Cancer Society, 28,000 men died from prostate cancer in 2008 -- or does it merely subject a large number of men with elevated PSAs to unnecessary surgery or radiation with side effects that can include urinary incontinence, erectile dysfunction, and irritative urinary and bowel symptoms? Doctors and patients alike have always wanted to know the answer for years, and they were hoping that these randomized trials would provide them. Unfortunately, they did not. http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/prostate_disorders/JohnsHopkinsProstateDisordersHealthAlert_3005-1.html

This "data point" is glad for the test. I highly recommend it. You wanna take a chance - it's your butt and I could care less.

 

[Goofy]

well, as most of you know with the exception of Trial expert Dr Fries, the entire board of Aviation Medical Advisors resigned, myself included.....

Great news!

 

[bbchien]

Hey, it was with NO JOY, the less said the better.

 

[Gary F]

This "data point" is glad for the test. I highly recommend it. You wanna take a chance - it's your butt and I could care less.

Unless you get a bad complication from treatment. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. The good news is that if you really understand what the test results mean and carefully research your options the potential for unnecessary harm is reduced. The is more of an issue for cardiac issues where the risk from complications is greater.