May 13, 2006 - 6:40 pm
I really angered my urologist yesterday. I asked why so few studies have compared active treatment options to just leaving prostate cancer to Mother Nature. I pressed for an age-adjsuted estimate of 10 year survival rates given surgery vs minimal treatment.
Put another way, I wanted to know if agressive treatment will raise my life expectancy by a year or a decade. Based on my doctor's anger, I could conclude that the benefits are tiny. But I would rather work from data than emotions.
How did all of you analyze the benefits of the treatments?
As to me:
I am 47 and the latest PSA was 4.8. A needle biopsy came back with a Gleason of 3+3=6 and a bone scan was cancer free. The urologist advised surgery. The radio oncologist said things are so unclear that she would not know what to advise to her husband.