← Return to Active Surveillance- Systematic Review of Interventions

Discussion
Comment receiving replies
Profile picture for handera @handera

@handera

A timely comment?

This study just published yesterday!!!

“Prostate Cancer Mortality After Relabeling Low-Grade Prostate Cancer as Precancerous”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/article-abstract/2849438
Conclusion:

“In this study, dropping the cancer label from GG1 prostate disease and redefining GG1 prostate disease as a precancerous lesion led to a net reduction in estimated prostate cancer deaths. Proponents for retaining the cancer label for GG1 prostate disease should argue relabeling would have close to zero effects on screening rates or that other harms outweigh the benefits of reduced prostate cancer mortality.”

Results: In the base case, which was relatively conservative, relabeling would lead to 6-fold more annual prostate deaths avoided than caused (2835 vs 452).

Jump to this post


Replies to "@handera A timely comment? This study just published yesterday!!! “Prostate Cancer Mortality After Relabeling Low-Grade Prostate..."

@handera Man, that study is REALLY bizarre!! So telling men that PSA screening is going to look for ‘precancerous’ conditions - and NOT label their GG1 as ‘cancer’ - is going to increase the number of men seeking screening and thereby avoid an increase in PCa deaths ( by men NOT wanting to be screened in order not to hear the word ‘cancer’); and by a 6 fold decrease in mortality at that?
That’s really reaching, IMO.
Let’s try this: I personally was diagnosed with bladder ‘cancer’ Grade 0, meaning not invasive into the muscle layer.
I had these lesions removed 3 times by two different surgeons and they all came up Grade 0; however, the fact that they kept coming back prompted my urologist to intervene with BCG/Interferon injected into the bladder to attempt to halt the process.
Knock wood, so far it has worked for almost 5 years and I am still alive.
When I questioned my doc about why I needed to worry, since the Grade 0 was the lowest form of cancer possible, he told me these lesions can change all the time and leapfrog from a Grade 0 to a Stage 4 rather quickly; dead in a year once that happens.
Having that word ‘cancer’ burned into my brain prompted me to keep up with my screening every 6 months, find new lesions while small snd treatable, and finally have treatment to hopefully eradicate it for good🤞.
Had I been told it was ‘precancerous’ and should be watched, I, as a health professional, would have continued screening, but How many less educated, less informed men would???
How many would view necessary periodic screening as a nuisance or a money grab by big medicine? I can almost hear, “Yeah, doc, LIFE is a precancerous condition…take care!”
So for me, this study is a real problem and I cannot imagine what AI engine or thought process came up with the conclusion that changing the words changes the facts. You can’t SPIN abnormal cells into something you WISH they were.
We now know so much more about overtreatment, AS, Decipher scores, genomic tests…there’s no need to change the words when all you have to do is change the protocol. Best,
Phil