I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search




Posted 03 December 2017 03:44:37(UTC)

Hello , some of you may be interested in a very good article on diagnosed for prostate cancer published in the mail on sunday pulished by the mail on 7th november by professor Freddie Hamdy  article number 5056043. Him and his team are are doing a major trial involving 82,000 men with prostate cancer.


Thanked 2 times
Posted 03 December 2017 10:22:33(UTC)


Why NOT treating prostate cancer 'is best for most men':
Thousands with slow-growing tumours are undergoing unnecessary treatment

Interesting article, but the sort of stuff you'd expect on a Sunday morning. 

I don't dispute his argument in theory, but in practice, iit ain't so simple.

WHY do people 'insist' on treatment? Because the options have not been explained clearly enough, Professor!

And 'better not diagnosed' is, of course, utter piffle, and he should be ashamed. It might be true on a statistical analysis of the population - but for those claimed 1 in 9, it would be a premature death sentence.

I don't entirely blame the professor - though his narcissism in talking to the Mail, rather than publishing in the Lancet is sad - today's journalists will inevitably twist a story, however sensibly it started.


-- Andrew --

"I intend to live forever, or die trying" - Groucho Marx
Posted 03 December 2017 17:31:14(UTC)

Interesting. The issue seems to be primarily with diagnosis of very small areas of Gleason 6 and some argue it should not be described as 'cancer' as it doesn't have the properties but by giving it the name cancer it causes this quite understandable anxiety that leads to over treatment when resources could be refocused on Gleason 7 and higher. This US doctor has an interesting take on it all


Apparently Gleason 5 got downgraded and once upon a time it was described as cancer but now it's discover leads to an 'all clear' diagnosis. It's all quite grey. My husbands diagnosis was G6 but with a large volume all agreed he would need treatment within 5 years so that seems to conflict with the don't diagnose G6 advice.

What I do believe is that it all should be discussed and explained.

Posted 03 December 2017 21:51:31(UTC)


The US Dr you gave the link to largely provides CV and accreditations which seem impressive. It seems you need to read his book or published papers to get a good grasp of his thoughts. It requires the results of combined tests to help ascertain how soon a man needs treatment but once diagnosed many a man who could likely just be monitored is going instead to want early radical treatment and occasionally is right to do so. As it stands there is the dilemma.

Thanked 1 time
Posted 04 December 2017 03:28:12(UTC)

Hi , well he did submit his initial findings to the National cancer research institute conference a few weeks ago, but I haven't been able to find out if thet made comments on this. all the best  

Thanked 1 time
©2018 Prostate Cancer UK