Surgery a Help for Aggressive Prostate Cancer

bdhilton

These are articles posted by the Prostate Cancer Foundation, which by the way is the most aggressive foundation supporting PCa in the world...So if you have an issue with my posting (directed to a few) then sent your complaints to them and not hold the entire group hostage to your rebuttals…Peace

http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.6284067/k.38B0/Surgery_a_Help_for_Aggressive_Prostate_Cancer.htm

Researchers report radical prostatectomy can extend survival rates
Monday, Sept. 27 (HealthDay News) -- Patients battling the most aggressive form of prostate cancer are good candidates for prostate surgery, and it could extend their lives, new research indicates.

A team of researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia reported that 92 percent of patients with "high-risk prostate cancer" who underwent a radical prostatectomy procedure had a 10-year cancer-specific survival rate of 92 percent, equal to the survival rate after a combination of radiation and androgen (hormone) deprivation therapy.

But the overall survival rate after a radical prostatectomy, which involves removal of the prostate, was higher (77 percent) than either radiation and androgen therapy (67 percent), or radiation alone (52 percent), the investigators found.

The study findings were to be presented Monday at the American Urological Association meeting in Chicago.

"It's long been believed that patients with aggressive prostate cancer are not candidates for surgery," study author Dr. Stephen Boorjian, a Mayo Clinic urologist, said in a Mayo news release. "We found that surgery does provide excellent long-term cancer control for this type of prostate cancer."

In addition, he said, "by allowing the targeted use of secondary therapies such as androgen deprivation, surgery offers the opportunity to avoid or at least delay the potentially adverse health consequences of these treatments."

Boorjian and his colleagues focused on nearly 1,850 patients diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer between 1988 and 2004.

Almost 1,240 of these patients underwent surgical treatment, while more than 600 underwent radiation therapy. Among the latter, 344 also were treated with androgen deprivation therapy.

"Patients with radiation and hormone therapy were 50 percent more likely to die than patients who had surgery," Boorjian noted. "This was true even after controlling for patient age, co-morbidities and features of the tumors. These results suggest that use of hormone therapy in patients who received radiation therapy may have had adverse health consequences."

But, he added, "further studies evaluating the differing impacts of treatments on quality of life and non-cancer mortality are necessary before we can determine the best approach for patients with aggressive prostate cancer."



Back to Treatment and Outcomes

Kongo

Postings
While some of these mass posts are interesting, most of us frequently see these in greater detail earlier at the source instead of a watered down version in the quoted news reports written by a medical reporter. Urotoday.com is a good source to see the actual abstract instead of the dumbed down version in a news release. Do you think, bd, that we wouldn't be aware of this information if you didn't post it?

What would be even more useful is if you could give the readers of this forum some clue as to why you posted the article. Did you find it interesting, or did it cause you to change your opinion on something, or is it a controversial topic that from you own experience didn't pan out?

My opinion is that this forum is at its best when there is a civil, well articulated discussion about a treatment or protocol that members can speak to based on their own experience or research. I don't beleive this forum was ever designed to be just a news feed. There are plenty of other (and better) places to get that. Just set your google news up to flag anything with "prostate cancer" in it.

I would agree that simply cutting and pasting makes spelling a lot easier and you don't have to take credit for the grammar or syntax.

mrspjd

same info posted again
No discussion necessary. It was discussed yesterday as it's the exact same info posted in a new thread by the same user on 9/27/10, only packaged a little differently!

Check it out: http://csn.cancer.org/node/202012