Posted on 10/24/2021 9:17:29 AM PDT by ConservativeMind
That recommendation came out of an Obamacare focus group. They claimed that the negative psychological effects of getting a PSA and biopsy was greater than the risk of actually having prostate. That recommendation has been changed and the newest recommendation is to get regular PSA and DRE checks.
Unfortunately, it was too late for me. When my prostate cancer was staged seven years ago when I was 61, one of the doctors I saw at MD Anderson said they expected to be seeing many more Stage 4 prostate cancer patients.
Fortunately for me, I have responded exceedingly well to first and second line androgen deprivation therapy drugs. I have responded so well, I expect to be around for the cure
Any man that has an increasing PSA, or a PSA above 4.0, needs to get a biopsy. Best to go to a major cancer center like MD Anderson.
A retrospective study going back for at least 10 years is a bit misleading.
Over the past 6-7 years, the median 5-year survival rate is just over five years.
The average length of survival depends on many factors. No man’s case is the same. The response to different treatments varies widely. Not having BRAC 1, or 2 genetic defects also helps.
If your metastatic prostate cancer is diagnosed when your PSA is relatively low also helps.
The former. Retired colonel US Army prohibits him from going bare pickle in public.
Men get BC, too (although rarely).
People often complain that more funding goes toward BC. But, women with metastatic BC complain that the funding only goes toward treatments for early-stage BC. Many doctors admit that they really haven't gotten very far with BC treatments. They've mostly gotten better at catching it earlier.
The same seems to be true for PC - it's diagnosed earlier now.
PC and BC are similar in many ways. Both are often treated by "decreasing" a hormone. Both are associated with BRCA genetic mutations. Both kill many people, though many people erroneously believe both are curable now.
I do yearly blood tests, last showed elevated PSA. Prostrate cancer confirmed. On hormone treatment which dropped PSA to .22 now doing 20 session IMRT.
Some saying don’t do PSA testing. Lot of wack nuts here today.
Go to a doctor, have blood drawn and look for the markers of PC. It can’t cost more than 2
$300 to save your life. You also can get your primary to order testing.
That's eerily reminiscent of how the pro-vax people sound.
I just saw this link, I haven’t posted on FR in years.
For crying out loud. All men should get a PSA test after age 50. In some cases earlier. I was diagnosed at age 51 with a 5.6 PSA score. Routine bloodwork on my annual exam. Follow up with a urologist, five out of eight biopsy specimens were positive for cancer. I was floored! Subsequent follow up revealed that is was still incapsulated. I opted for the surgery. It was a nasty procedure in 1999. No radiation or chemo. I will be 74 next week. No regrets. Glad to be alive.
GET THE PSA
They are with you on women’s issues from abortion to activism.
You claim you don't spend money on prostitutes, and I'm taking you at your word. Given that, doesn't it bother you that men have billions to spend on prostitution and none for activism for their rights?
Consult, I appreciate the posts and I generally know about them.
However, you are so focused on caring about the PSA test as the end-all, be-all, when everyone knows it is insufficient now for many years. That makes your posts rather less useful.
Stop feeding this line of inappropriate thinking to everyone here. Medical science has moved beyond the PSA test because of the information in your posts. What should next happen after a higher PSA test, in place of a biopsy, if the PSA isn’t good for that level of work? We have a TON of options to pare down the need for a biopsy:
From “Alternatives to a Prostate Biopsy: 4 Tests to Identify Your Risk of Prostate Cancer”
Two other options after PSA and the classic “finger up the butt”
- Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)
- Urine test to determine your Mi-prostate score (MiPS)
https://www.healthline.com/health/prostate-cancer/prostate-biopsy-alternatives
From “Related biomarkers in the diagnosis of prostate cancer”
- Prostate cancer antigen 3
- Early prostate cancer antigen
- Prostate-specific membrane antigen
- Alpha-methylacyl-CoA racemase
- Vascular endothelial growth factor
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26665686/
From “Alternative tests to PSA for prostate cancer diagnosis”
- Serum kallikreins
- Serum detectable prostate specific membrane antigen
- The nuclear matrix protein EPCA
- EPCA-2
- Prostatic acid phosphatase
- Urine detectable GSTP1
- Anti-AMACR antibodies
- Sarcosine
- Plasminogen activating urokinase
- IGFBP
- TGF beta 1
- PSP94
- IL6
- Plasmatic DNA
- Serum autoantibodies
- Neuroendocrine markers
- Proteomic analysis
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21553390/
From “
- Free AND Complexed PSA
- IsoPSA
- 4K Score
- Prostate Health Index (PHI) (a combination of above items)
https://blogs.webmd.com/mens-health/20181231/5-alternatives-to-the-psa-screening-test
From “ Sugar: The Key to a More Accurate Prostate Cancer Test?” [Not publicly available]
- The Sugar test (4 of 56 glycans only show if having cancer)
https://www.bensnaturalhealth.com/blog/alternative-to-psa-test/
As you can see, there are a myriad of other tests that could be used, once a higher PSA is found. If the additional selected tests also show concern, then a biopsy could be more urgent.
We both agree we want to limit biopsies. However, I appear to be the only one of us telling people to go forward, rather than stop and “take death like a man.”
See post #91.
I have a problem with your position that says we have to suck at the teat of gov’t to get research in men’s helath and since women who spend billions on abortion and advocate for more research on women’s issues gets more of my tax money.
Not sure how anyone on this forum can’t understand that. Gov’t is the problem NOT the solution. Advocating men give more money to gov’t so that the gov’t spends more of taxpayer money for men is just asinine.
Every year. My doctor says I have the prostate of a 35 year-old. I’m 61.
Bookmark
Good for you, I am on the other end. Not diagnosed until there were mets. Doing great with treatments though. It will be 5 years on March 1 2022.
A bolt out of the blue, as I was working everyday, but was required to dig a post hole in very hard ground. The next day I couldn’t lift my arm. Got xrays and VOILA, not shoulder cancer, but Prostate cancer.
Life doesn’t suck, but it is different and restrictive. What I wouldn’t give to have had yearly blood testing for PSA markers.
Do you realize in your diatribe that you are stating, that in your eyes, since the negatives outweigh the positives, you are saying not to do anything?
How do you believe that because someone had prostate cancer removed, but is now not capable of having an erection or holding their urine, that life is not worth living and that they shouldn’t have had the cancer removed? You do realize a large proportion of mothers have incontinence from having given birth, right? I have a close family member who often pees her pants when she sneezes. She didn’t have cancer removed, but you equate that to a life that shouldn’t be lived? Really? The stats for birthing wouldn’t surprise me that at least 25% of women have incontinence issues, and with your perverse thinking, they should never have gotten pregnant or had sex, since the self harm is so high a risk when the only reward is some kid you have to care for over years.
In your next post, you copied this in:
* About 65% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer will be treated early with surgery or radiation, and 75% will have significant harms including impotence and/or urinary incontinence.
I would say that life with impotence, but decades longer of expectancy, is preferable to death from cancer you were talked out of treating before it went metastatic and killed you in five years.
You’d do well to read the comments of men on this thread who caught it early and even one who sadly caught it late, but has survived five years, soon. Be sure to tell them what they did was stupid and wasted money.
You are the last piece of flesh I’d ask for a consult.
You're the one who originally complained about women's health issues getting more tax dollars than comparable men's health issues.
I just pointed out that women's activism and men's lack of activism is why.
Not sure how anyone on this forum can’t understand that. Gov’t is the problem NOT the solution. Advocating men give more money to gov’t so that the gov’t spends more of taxpayer money for men is just asinine.
I never said anything about giving the government money. I said use activism to get more of it.
But that doesn't change my main point anyway. If men really care about whether they or their sons get prostate cancer, then take those billions they have spend on prostitution and donate it to research. They can do that without going through the government. In fact it would be tax deductible.
Of course, if men care more about the services from prostitutes than they do about saving their own lives or the lives of their sons from prostate cancer, then that's their choice.
I never said anything about giving the government money. I said use activism to get more of it. You really don't have much logic do you?
Also you are playing identity politics. That is something from the left. Another thing that doesn’t belong here. I used it to illustrate the absurdity of identity politics and why gov’t needs to be small and out of our lives.
But you embrace it and attack men and advocate spending more money on causes to get gov’t to spend more money on things you think our righteous.
You really don’t fit in here if that’s what you believe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.