Prostate Cancer Surgery Fails to Cut Death Rate in Study

[marmar]

(Bloomberg) Surgery for prostate cancer was no better in saving lives than observation over a 10-year period, according to one of the first rigorous studies to compare the two approaches in American men with early-stage disease.

The U.S.-funded study assigned 731 men across the country with early prostate cancer to have the gland surgically removed or be observed without any attempt at curative treatment. Ten years later, 47 percent of men in the surgery group had died, mostly from other diseases, versus 49.9 percent who were just watched, results published in the New England Journal of Medicine found. The difference wasn’t statistically meaningful.

The study is certain to fuel the debate over whether doctors are aggressively treating prostate cancer in men who aren’t likely to die from it, causing side effects such as incontinence and impotence.

“There is no question in my mind that what we have been doing in the United States for the last 20 years has hurt a lot of men needlessly,” said Otis Brawley, chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society. “We need to be telling men that there is tremendous evidence that a large number of men with prostate cancer could be watched and don’t need to be treated.” ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-18/prostate-cancer-surgery-fails-to-cut-death-rate-in-study.html

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[nichomachus]

2. Headline misleading

It should say "Prostate Cancer Surgery in elderly men . . . "

The story buried an important piece of information at the bottom:

The benefit from the surgery was confined to men younger than age 65.

My partner -- who is 58 -- was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer. Because of his age, we opted for the surgery. We have another friend who was diagnosed at 51. He also had the surgery. Another friend, who is 75, was diagnosed recently and they are deciding between radiation and just waiting.

Everyone we (and our friends) talked to was very upfront about age being a critical factor and that the older you are, the less call there is for surgery because, as the article states, you may die from something else first. I didn't get the sense that anyone was pushing aggressive treatment where it wasn't warranted.