@Chris * 2 - yes, on reflection, I think that is the issue particularly as I was not recorded as being high risk, I assume over treatment was more of an issue than BCR risk
@Francij / Lynn - yes, the information was from the paper. Re-reading it and thinking about it, I think these numbers were from people on the dummy arm of the trial who later received SRT due to BCR but (and this is the difference) they were classed as high risk so it does seem logical after thought that ART would work better than SRT. I ran the MSK nomogram and got 74% with my numbers. Better than a lot of folk!
What was interesting was that they seemed to emphasise that there was far more prevalence of localised rather than distant spread which as with the trial Lynn mentioned gives possibilities for abroader range of earlier more aggressive treatment.
Also interesting that MSK are very conservative in their phrasing talking about controlling / undetectable rather than cure.
EDIT - I ran the progression free likelihood nomogram but I did not run the 5/10/15 chance of death one. Does that make me a wuss?
Edited by member 18 Mar 2019 at 13:28
| Reason: Not specified