Active Surveillance who would benefit?

Active Surveillance who would benefit?

Studies carried out by Julia Hayes of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Ian Thompson of the University of Texas Health Science Centre in San Antonio and Lawrence Klotz of Sunnybrook Health Science Centre in Toronto say that a patient with low risk prostate cancer are better off with active surveillance, men must be given accurate in formation and reassurance that for most men prostate cancer is not an “impending catastrophe”

Active surveillance is defined to include regular physical examinations, PSA measurement, and re biopsy one year after diagnosis and every three years thereafter with treatment being triggered by progression to a Gleason score of 7 or higher, other evidence of progression (such as by PSA doubling), or patient preference. Despite uncertainties active surveillance appears to be a reasonable alternative to initial treatment.

If you look back into some of our previous blogs you will see that this is what has been said by red sock for quite some time as been the reason we have so much “over-treatment” which those in authority throw back at us as an excuse for not screening men for prostate cancer. If those people were to ask each of the 11000 men in the UK whose are about to die of prostate cancer what was their one regret it would be “I wish I had been tested earlier” I know because I am one of those men and I have spoken to many men who are sadly no longer with us because their prostate cancer was discovered too late.


No Comments

Post A Comment