← Return to Cancer in Prostate and Seminal Vesicles: Prostatectomy or SBRTw/ADT?

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
Profile picture for heavyphil @heavyphil

@northoftheborder So true, North, and these retrospective studies that look at 350,000 men treated over a 20 yr period with Gleason scores of X or Y, come to conclusions that have zero regard for contributing factors such as Decipher, Surgical path findings, etc…
You really have to wonder at the ‘scientific’ nature of these…
Phil

Jump to this post


Replies to "@northoftheborder So true, North, and these retrospective studies that look at 350,000 men treated over a..."

@heavyphil Exactly. Peer-reviewed retrospective studies are useful, but just not in the way people think (I sigh whenever I read "A new study has shown…" in the media).

Major trials cost many millions of dollars, so they're not practical for trying out speculative "what-if?" questions. But even a grad student can carry out a respective study with just a laptop and spreadsheet program (along with access to raw data, close supervision, and ethics reviews, of course).

After a while, if study results accumulate and are reproduceable — big "IF"s — then there's justification to fund a proper trial. And it's mostly the big-trial results that shape our treatment.