WorkingClassRugger
David Codey (61)
Thanks WCR, I'll chat to the doc about a blood test. I'd be worried if you took after your mother in looks, given your avatar..
Hahaha...I'd be tough as a coffin nail though.
Thanks WCR, I'll chat to the doc about a blood test. I'd be worried if you took after your mother in looks, given your avatar..
While I am a long way off having to consider this procedure, you sentiment in regards as to not having this test seems somewhat fraught with folly. Far be it for me someone who only knows you via a forum on the net trying to influence your judgement as I am sure you have thought this through and have your reasons but having known people who have had prostate cancer or are currently undergoing treatment for it, prevention is always better than a cure and in lieu of this, vigilance is always preferred to ignorance.
Similar to this, I had a blood test to identify whether I have inherited a gene liked to bowel cancer, one that increases my risk by 80%. The earliest you can be tested for this is 25 (my current age). I could choose not to know as a few of my family have but considering knowing this will allow me to maintain a vigilant watch on the condition it will actually dramatically reduce my risk to actually lower than everyone else. Even if it means a yearly colonoscopy and bi-yearly endoscopy. Thanks Mum,
Thanks Cyclopath - this is precisely what I was seeking - an informed debate, rather than emotive discussion, resulting in more men actively assessing their options and seeking the best outcome for their circumstances. I kind of thought there would be a bunch of knowledgeable folk on this site that could share their wisdom on the topic. Cheers.Lincoln, there is a disconnect between the statement "most, men with diagnosed localized prostate cancer have a disease that will never progress and cause harm"
and the assumption that they all need to be treated. Many low risk cancers can be managed by active surveillance rather than treatment. This "treatment" option is growing. I personally manage many prostate cancers this way.American data does not "fit" perfectly with Oz - Prostate Cancer is significantly over-treated in the USA, and has been for the past few decades.
The AUA position statement is intelligent -
"Given the uncertainty that PSA testing results in more benefit than harm, a thoughtful and broad approach to PSA is critical. Patients need to be informed of the risks and benefits of testing before it is undertaken. The risks of overdetection and overtreatment should be included in this discussion. "Your second point is the most pertinent - long history of longevity in males without a specific family history of prostate cancer.I'm not criticising your choice - you are clearly informed and appraised of the risks / benefits, and this is the message that is most important to get out there. You have made an informed decision.The message that is old and less relevant is that it is a disease of old men and one we should not worry about - a significant number of men die from it. They are the ones we need to target, and techniques for doing that are getting better all the time.DRE is a crude screening method at best - there have been many scientific papers to that effect.
Cyclo, do you know of any research that either supports or disagrees with the findings of this study (and I accept it is only an epidemiological study)?
In this recent prostate cancer study, the odds ratio for failure after surgery was 5.68 for the 3rd vs 1st tertile of pre-diagnostic sugar consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28417914