New treatment for prostate cancer gives 'perfect results' for nine in ten men: research

[dipsydoodle]

It is hoped the new treatment, which involves heating only the tumours with a highly focused ultrasound, will mean men can be treated without an overnight stay in hospital and avoiding the distressing side effects associated with current therapies.

A study has found that focal HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound, provides the 'perfect' outcome of no major side effects and free of cancer 12 months after treatment, in nine out of ten cases.

Traditional surgery or radiotherapy can only provide the perfect outcome in half of cases currently.

Experts have said the results are 'very encouraging' and were a 'paradigm' shift in treatment of the disease.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9206425/New-treatment-for-prostate-cancer-gives-perfect-results-for-nine-in-ten-men-research.html

[MADem]

1. I wonder if this sort of thing has potential for application with other tumors? nt

[bemildred]

13. Yes, I would think this would have other applications. nt

[customerserviceguy]

2. Well, that's better odds

than anything else I've heard of, if it's actually true.

[dipsydoodle]

3. If its worked in nine out of ten cases in trials here in the UK

then chances are it is true.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. You Brits do the best medical research these days

Thanks.

[customerserviceguy]

8. I tend to discount "breakthrough" stories in the media

For starters, most reporters don't have the chops to really dissect a study, the way a true scientist or medial researcher can. Besides, it makes for a better story to write about a 'miracle' than to write about a dud.

We'll see what the next few rounds of studies, involving greater numbers of people bring. Don't get me wrong, I'd be very happy if they found some magic bullet, but most such bullets are just bull.

[2on2u]

5. Best news I've heard/read all day. Thanks for posting. n/t

[ForgoTheConsequence]

6. but but but

I was told that breakthroughs is medical science only come from profit driven corporations and that socialized medicine stifles progress.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Two nations

Last edited Tue Apr 17, 2012, 11:19 AM - Edit history (1)

divided by a common language and general healthcare.

btw - part of the reason for setting up our NHS back in 1948 was the loss of life in WW2 and the need to protect our children for the future as a result of that.

[seeviewonder]

7. Wait until Big Pharma gets this technique patented.

It will either cost a ton for a single session or it will be swept under the rug like it never existed. Way too much money for them to make on conventional chemotherapy drugs. Sickening, really...anyway, yes, thank you, Britain!

[MineralMan]

11. No, actually, you are incorrect.

If studies shows that it is really effective, it will be very common. And, since the majority of prostate cancers occur in men old enough to be on Medicare, it won't cost that much, either.

[seeviewonder]

12. I hope you are correct.

However, being realistic, I don't see pharma and the entire "health" industry doing the right thing.

[trotsky]

14. Actually, no, you're not being realistic.

Cure prostate cancer and you'll extend those men's lives so that they can consume more of the big money-makers like cholesterol, arthritis, etc. drugs.

I laugh whenever anyone suggests "big pharma" doesn't really want to cure cancer. They can't make any money off a dead customer.

[bemildred]

16. The dead pay nothing, but the dying and their heirs pay really well. nt

[trotsky]

17. The alt-med industry is a far better example of that. n/t

[bemildred]

18. They are fuil of shit too, I quite agree.

I don't really buy the Big Pharma idea, they are not that organized, it's more like a herd of pigs following the smell of money; however a great deal of our "health care" dollar IS spent on patients in their final days, and I wanted to point that out, it really does pay very well to treat terminal illnesses.

[trotsky]

19. There is quite a bit spent on palliative care, to be sure.

But that period doesn't generally last very long. Given the choice, I think pharma companies would rather keep you alive well into your elderly years to become regular consumers. Which is why I just don't see the logic in them - even if they could - "blocking" a cure for a type of cancer.

[bemildred]

20. I think it would depend on what they were selling.

You are quite right that they would likely prefer maintenance regimens that result is a steady uncontroversial stream of profits and praise. But that may not be what they have to sell. A lot of the heavily marketed stuff is heavily marketed because it will never sell itself. All that marketing costs boatloads of money too, and in the end who pays for that?

When you treat the dying, you do need a constant supply of new customers, but fortunately that is a given, we are all going to die, and a lot of us will get sick first.

[MineralMan]

10. That's very encouraging.

I hope it continues to show the same results.

[xchrom]

15. excellent. nt

[phylny]

21. I hope this really works.

It's too late for my husband, who has complications after a radical prostatectomy, but it would be great to know other men could be spared the same.