The Center for Science in the Public Interest has stated it will file a suit against Bayer HealthCare, alleging "deceptive and irresponsible" advertising indicating selenium may reduce men's risk of prostate cancer, despite the findings of a large research study funded by the National Institutes of Health stating selenium does not prevent prostate cancer in healthy men. One A Day Men's 50+ Advantage ads say selenium may cut men's risk of prostate cancer. The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, which involved 35,000 U.S. and Canadian men, was halted in October 2008 when researchers determined selenium was not protecting the men from prostate cancer and may even cause diabetes.
In support of the center's letter of complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), nine researchers including signees from the American Cancer Society and Harvard School of Public Health wrote directly to Bayer's associate director of advertising practices. Their letter supporting the FTC's complaint states, "the federally financed study was the largest individually, randomized cancer prevention trial ever conducted, and, given its high rates of adherence and its statistical power, it is unlikely to have missed detecting a benefit of even a very modest size."
More federal funds going down the ole tube.
Have a good weekend.
Blessings,
Rick
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Brachytherapy Snafu
Rob Bennett for The New York Times
For patients with prostate cancer, it is a common surgical procedure: a doctor implants dozens of radioactive seeds to attack the disease. But when Dr. Gary D. Kao treated one patient at the veterans’ hospital in Philadelphia, his aim was more than a little off.
Most of the seeds, 40 in all, landed in the patient’s healthy bladder, not the prostate.
It was a serious mistake, and under federal rules, regulators investigated. But Dr. Kao, with their consent, made his mistake all but disappear.
He simply rewrote his surgical plan to match the number of seeds in the prostate, investigators said.
The revision may have made Dr. Kao look better, but it did nothing for the patient, who had to undergo a second implant. It failed, too, resulting in an unintended dose to the rectum. Regulators knew nothing of this second mistake because no one reported it.
Two years later, in 2005, Dr. Kao rewrote another surgical plan after putting half the seeds in the wrong organ. Once again, regulators did not object.
Had the government responded more aggressively, it might have uncovered a rogue cancer unit at the hospital, one that operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years — and then kept quiet about it, according to interviews with investigators, government officials and public records.
The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.
One patient was the Rev. Ricardo Flippin, a 21-year veteran of the Air Force. “I couldn’t walk and I couldn’t stand,” he said, citing rectal pain so severe that he had to remain in bed for six months, losing his church job and his income. Pastor Flippin first learned of what his doctors called a radiation injury not from the V.A., but from an Ohio hospital where he underwent rectal surgery in 2006 to treat the damage. “There are times when I don’t have control over my bowels,” he said one recent Sunday, after excusing himself during a service at a church in West Virginia where he now preaches.
The 92 implant errors resulted from a system-wide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Peer review, a staple of every good hospital, in which colleagues examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene; either their inspections had been limited or they had not acted decisively upon finding problems.
Over all, the implant program lacked a “safety culture,” the nuclear commission found. Dr. Kao and other members of his team, the commission said, were not properly supervised or trained in what constitutes a substandard implant and the need to report it. Dr. Kao declined to comment for this article.
Virtually none of the substandard implants in Philadelphia were reported to the nuclear commission, meaning errors went uninvestigated for weeks, months and sometimes years. During that time, many patients did not know that their cancer treatments were flawed.
Federal investigators are continuing to look into the flawed implants as well as those at other V.A. hospitals. The Philadelphia prostate unit was closed after problems began to surface in mid-2008, and it has yet to reopen. The V.A. has also suspended the implants, known as brachytherapy, at hospitals in Jackson, Miss., and Cincinnati, though neither had problems on a scale of Philadelphia’s.
The V.A. has yet to fully account for how these substandard implants affected veterans, though no one is believed to have died from them. No patient names have been made public. Veterans officials said Dr. Kao was no longer at the Philadelphia hospital and would not be allowed to return. The officials acknowledged that they had failed to supervise the unit.
A lawyer for Dr. Kao, Jack L. Gruenstein, said The Times’s account of the doctor’s role was “false,” but he declined to elaborate.
Have a good Thursday.
Blessings,
Rick
For patients with prostate cancer, it is a common surgical procedure: a doctor implants dozens of radioactive seeds to attack the disease. But when Dr. Gary D. Kao treated one patient at the veterans’ hospital in Philadelphia, his aim was more than a little off.
Most of the seeds, 40 in all, landed in the patient’s healthy bladder, not the prostate.
It was a serious mistake, and under federal rules, regulators investigated. But Dr. Kao, with their consent, made his mistake all but disappear.
He simply rewrote his surgical plan to match the number of seeds in the prostate, investigators said.
The revision may have made Dr. Kao look better, but it did nothing for the patient, who had to undergo a second implant. It failed, too, resulting in an unintended dose to the rectum. Regulators knew nothing of this second mistake because no one reported it.
Two years later, in 2005, Dr. Kao rewrote another surgical plan after putting half the seeds in the wrong organ. Once again, regulators did not object.
Had the government responded more aggressively, it might have uncovered a rogue cancer unit at the hospital, one that operated with virtually no outside scrutiny and botched 92 of 116 cancer treatments over a span of more than six years — and then kept quiet about it, according to interviews with investigators, government officials and public records.
The team continued implants for a year even though the equipment that measured whether patients received the proper radiation dose was broken. The radiation safety committee at the Veterans Affairs hospital knew of this problem but took no action, records show.
One patient was the Rev. Ricardo Flippin, a 21-year veteran of the Air Force. “I couldn’t walk and I couldn’t stand,” he said, citing rectal pain so severe that he had to remain in bed for six months, losing his church job and his income. Pastor Flippin first learned of what his doctors called a radiation injury not from the V.A., but from an Ohio hospital where he underwent rectal surgery in 2006 to treat the damage. “There are times when I don’t have control over my bowels,” he said one recent Sunday, after excusing himself during a service at a church in West Virginia where he now preaches.
The 92 implant errors resulted from a system-wide failure in which none of the safeguards that were supposed to protect veterans from poor medical care worked, an examination by The New York Times has found.
Peer review, a staple of every good hospital, in which colleagues examine one another’s work, did not exist in the unit. The V.A.’s radiation safety program; the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the use of all nuclear materials; and the Joint Commission, a group that accredited the hospital, all failed to intervene; either their inspections had been limited or they had not acted decisively upon finding problems.
Over all, the implant program lacked a “safety culture,” the nuclear commission found. Dr. Kao and other members of his team, the commission said, were not properly supervised or trained in what constitutes a substandard implant and the need to report it. Dr. Kao declined to comment for this article.
Virtually none of the substandard implants in Philadelphia were reported to the nuclear commission, meaning errors went uninvestigated for weeks, months and sometimes years. During that time, many patients did not know that their cancer treatments were flawed.
Federal investigators are continuing to look into the flawed implants as well as those at other V.A. hospitals. The Philadelphia prostate unit was closed after problems began to surface in mid-2008, and it has yet to reopen. The V.A. has also suspended the implants, known as brachytherapy, at hospitals in Jackson, Miss., and Cincinnati, though neither had problems on a scale of Philadelphia’s.
The V.A. has yet to fully account for how these substandard implants affected veterans, though no one is believed to have died from them. No patient names have been made public. Veterans officials said Dr. Kao was no longer at the Philadelphia hospital and would not be allowed to return. The officials acknowledged that they had failed to supervise the unit.
A lawyer for Dr. Kao, Jack L. Gruenstein, said The Times’s account of the doctor’s role was “false,” but he declined to elaborate.
Have a good Thursday.
Blessings,
Rick
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDS)
SATURDAY, June 20 (HealthDay News) -- Taking over-the-counter painkillers such as aspirin and ibuprofen might help men avoid prostate problems.
But even so, medical experts are quick to caution men not to self-dose or to take more than the recommended amounts of these medications, because harmful side effects can result.
"Our data suggest if men are taking these [medications] for another problem, it might prevent urological problems as well," said Jennifer St. Sauver, an epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota who led a study that found that men who took nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) daily had a reduction of about 50 percent in enlargement of the prostate gland. The condition, called benign prostatic hyperplasia, affects many men after age 40.
The gland, about the size of a walnut, is below the bladder and surrounds the urine-carrying canal or urethra. The gland often enlarges in older men, making urination difficult.
But men in St. Sauver's study who took painkillers daily had more than a third fewer moderate to severe urinary problems than men who did not take daily painkillers.
Lower levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) also seem to be a benefit experienced by men who take NSAIDs regularly. PSA is a biomarker in the bloodstream that is used to assess the risk of getting prostate cancer.
Dr. Eric A. Singer, chief resident in urology at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, led a team of researchers who found that regular use of NSAIDs yielded PSA levels 10 percent lower than in men who didn't use them. St. Sauver's study found lower PSA levels among NSAID users in her study as well.
Men taking acetaminophen also were included in Singer's study, and they had about the same reduction in PSA levels. But, because the number of men who took acetaminophen was low, the result was not great enough to be statistically significant, he explained.
Exactly how the medications seemingly prevent enlargement of the prostate and other problems isn't certain, St. Sauver and Singer agreed. But they speculated that the medication's anti-inflammatory action plays a major role.
However, men who take NSAIDs need to keep in mind that, if taken in excess, the drugs can cause kidney ailments and other problems, Singer warned. And too much acetaminophen has been associated with liver toxicity.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns that extended use of NSAIDs can increase the chances of a fatal heart attack or stroke and also can cause ulcers or excessive bleeding in the stomach and intestines.
Because of such possibilities, "we are certainly not telling men to take NSAIDs to reduce PSA or prostate cancer risk," Singer said, despite the "good news" from the studies.
''Talk to your health-care provider about prostate health and prostate cancer screening," he advised, adding a reminder to "make sure your doctor knows what medications you are taking."
No one knows exactly why some men develop prostate cancer, and others don't. In the United States, though, almost 190,000 men are expected to be diagnosed with the disease this year, and about one in six will develop it at some point in their life, according to the American Cancer Society.
Age is the main risk factor for prostate cancer. U.S. government statistics show that the disease rarely occurs in men younger than 40 and most often strikes men older than 65.
To treat prostate cancer that has not spread beyond the gland, according to the Cancer Society, doctors most often recommend:
•Prostatectomy, surgery to remove all or part of the prostate gland
•Radiation, either via an external beam or implanted radioactive seeds
•Watchful waiting, the term used to describe deferring treatment until there are signs that the cancer is progressing
And, as treatment and detection methods have improved, the survival rate for prostate cancer has been improving in the United States in recent decades, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Have a good Wednesday.
Blessings,
Rick
But even so, medical experts are quick to caution men not to self-dose or to take more than the recommended amounts of these medications, because harmful side effects can result.
"Our data suggest if men are taking these [medications] for another problem, it might prevent urological problems as well," said Jennifer St. Sauver, an epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota who led a study that found that men who took nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) daily had a reduction of about 50 percent in enlargement of the prostate gland. The condition, called benign prostatic hyperplasia, affects many men after age 40.
The gland, about the size of a walnut, is below the bladder and surrounds the urine-carrying canal or urethra. The gland often enlarges in older men, making urination difficult.
But men in St. Sauver's study who took painkillers daily had more than a third fewer moderate to severe urinary problems than men who did not take daily painkillers.
Lower levels of prostate specific antigen (PSA) also seem to be a benefit experienced by men who take NSAIDs regularly. PSA is a biomarker in the bloodstream that is used to assess the risk of getting prostate cancer.
Dr. Eric A. Singer, chief resident in urology at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, led a team of researchers who found that regular use of NSAIDs yielded PSA levels 10 percent lower than in men who didn't use them. St. Sauver's study found lower PSA levels among NSAID users in her study as well.
Men taking acetaminophen also were included in Singer's study, and they had about the same reduction in PSA levels. But, because the number of men who took acetaminophen was low, the result was not great enough to be statistically significant, he explained.
Exactly how the medications seemingly prevent enlargement of the prostate and other problems isn't certain, St. Sauver and Singer agreed. But they speculated that the medication's anti-inflammatory action plays a major role.
However, men who take NSAIDs need to keep in mind that, if taken in excess, the drugs can cause kidney ailments and other problems, Singer warned. And too much acetaminophen has been associated with liver toxicity.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns that extended use of NSAIDs can increase the chances of a fatal heart attack or stroke and also can cause ulcers or excessive bleeding in the stomach and intestines.
Because of such possibilities, "we are certainly not telling men to take NSAIDs to reduce PSA or prostate cancer risk," Singer said, despite the "good news" from the studies.
''Talk to your health-care provider about prostate health and prostate cancer screening," he advised, adding a reminder to "make sure your doctor knows what medications you are taking."
No one knows exactly why some men develop prostate cancer, and others don't. In the United States, though, almost 190,000 men are expected to be diagnosed with the disease this year, and about one in six will develop it at some point in their life, according to the American Cancer Society.
Age is the main risk factor for prostate cancer. U.S. government statistics show that the disease rarely occurs in men younger than 40 and most often strikes men older than 65.
To treat prostate cancer that has not spread beyond the gland, according to the Cancer Society, doctors most often recommend:
•Prostatectomy, surgery to remove all or part of the prostate gland
•Radiation, either via an external beam or implanted radioactive seeds
•Watchful waiting, the term used to describe deferring treatment until there are signs that the cancer is progressing
And, as treatment and detection methods have improved, the survival rate for prostate cancer has been improving in the United States in recent decades, according to the National Cancer Institute.
Have a good Wednesday.
Blessings,
Rick
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Benefits of Green Tea
Active compounds in green tea may slow the progression of prostate cancer, according to a new study published in Cancer Prevention Research.
The study, which was conducted at Louisiana State University, also showed that green tea might lower the incidence of prostate cancer in the first place.
The study is one of the few green tea trials that evaluated biomarkers in order to predict prostate cancer’s progression, said study leader James A. Cardelli, director of basic and translational research in the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center at LSU University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport.
The biomarkers tracked were PSA (prostate specific antigen), HGF (hepatocyte growth factor), and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor).
The study, which used compounds of green tea polyphenols in the form of Polyphon E provided by Polyphenon Pharma, involved 26 men ages 41 to 72 who were scheduled for radical prostactectomies. For an average of about 35 days up until the day before surgery, each man took four capsules of Polyphenon E, which was equal to drinking 12 cups of normally brewed green tea.
The researchers found that the green tea compounds significantly reduced serum levels of PSA, HGF, and VEGF, with reductions as great as 30 percent in some patients.
There were few side effects, and other biomarkers were “positively affected,” Cardelli said.
Referring to the LSU study and to a year-long clinical trial in Italy involving green tea polyphenols, Cardelli said, “These studies are just the beginning and a lot of work remains to be done. However, we think that the use of tea polyphenols alone or in combination with other compounds currently used for cancer therapy should be explored as an approach to prevent cancer progression and recurrence.”
Have a god Tuesday and try to stay cool.
Blessings,
Rick
The study, which was conducted at Louisiana State University, also showed that green tea might lower the incidence of prostate cancer in the first place.
The study is one of the few green tea trials that evaluated biomarkers in order to predict prostate cancer’s progression, said study leader James A. Cardelli, director of basic and translational research in the Feist-Weiller Cancer Center at LSU University Health Sciences Center-Shreveport.
The biomarkers tracked were PSA (prostate specific antigen), HGF (hepatocyte growth factor), and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor).
The study, which used compounds of green tea polyphenols in the form of Polyphon E provided by Polyphenon Pharma, involved 26 men ages 41 to 72 who were scheduled for radical prostactectomies. For an average of about 35 days up until the day before surgery, each man took four capsules of Polyphenon E, which was equal to drinking 12 cups of normally brewed green tea.
The researchers found that the green tea compounds significantly reduced serum levels of PSA, HGF, and VEGF, with reductions as great as 30 percent in some patients.
There were few side effects, and other biomarkers were “positively affected,” Cardelli said.
Referring to the LSU study and to a year-long clinical trial in Italy involving green tea polyphenols, Cardelli said, “These studies are just the beginning and a lot of work remains to be done. However, we think that the use of tea polyphenols alone or in combination with other compounds currently used for cancer therapy should be explored as an approach to prevent cancer progression and recurrence.”
Have a god Tuesday and try to stay cool.
Blessings,
Rick
Monday, June 22, 2009
Parade Magazine Talks About Prostate Cancer
By Dr. Ranit Mishori
From Parade Magazine, June 21, 2009
It's one of the most common cancers in men, so if a simple blood test tells you whether you have it or not, you take the test, right? Not necessarily. In fact, the medical world is quite divided over whether it always makes sense to test for cancer of the prostate.
The controversy could be confusing to a generation of American men who were taught that early detection is important and that all men over 50 should be tested. Last year, there were 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer and more than 28,000 deaths.
But there's another way to look at the numbers. While a man has a 17% chance of getting the disease in his lifetime, he has only a 3% chance of dying from it, according to the journal American Family Physician. Many cases are very slow-growing and never actually cause any symptoms. In fact, well over half of elderly American men have prostate cancer, but most of them die of something else.
Many men may be better off not even knowing that something is growing in the walnut-sized gland located below their bladder. For one thing, the commonly given PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test is not very accurate. For another, most men who test positive want to get treatment, and treatment has risks that sometimes far outweigh its benefits, including erectile dysfunction, incontinence, bowel problems, and, rarely, death. Telling a man he has cancer, even if the odds of his dying from it are slim, affects anxiety levels, self-perception, and insurance status, adds Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends against prostate screening for men 75 and over and takes no position on screening for younger men, due to "insufficient evidence" of whether it does any good.
"We've led the public to believe that early detection is the solution for all our problems with cancer," Welch says. "But it can create as many problems as it solves."
Not everyone agrees. Recently, the American Urological Association (AUA) not only reaffirmed its support for the PSA test but even lowered the age at which it should be recommended, from 50 to 40.
So what's a man to do? Obviously, the decision to screen or not should be talked over with a doctor. Here are some facts to consider:
1. THE TEST'S RELIABILITY
Since the late 1980s, doctors have relied primarily on the PSA blood test, which measures the level of prostate-specific antigen in the blood as an indication of whether a man has cancer. But an elevated PSA level can indicate other problems, too, including infection, inflammation, or a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate. In fact, evidence suggests that up to 70% of men with PSA values greater than the traditional cutoff of 4 ng/mL do not have cancer. The opposite is also true: A low PSA is no guarantee that you don't have cancer.
Experts advise against using a single test result as the basis for further action. The AUA recommends that testing intervals be individualized and that doctors monitor "PSA velocity"--the rate at which the level rises over time. For example, if the PSA rises rapidly over a short period, a biopsy may be called for, even if levels are low.
2. THE VALUE OF A PHYSICAL EXAM
The old-fashioned digital rectal exam (DRE) for prostate problems--in which a doctor inserts a finger into a man's rectum and examines the prostate for lumps, bumps, asymmetry, or other abnormalities--is far from perfect, given how dependent it is on the doctor's experience and the fact that only part of the gland can be examined this way. Indeed, studies show that 72% to 82% of patients who agreed to a biopsy because of a DRE exam didn't have prostate cancer. Still, according to Dr. Brantley Thrasher, chairman of the urology department at the University of Kansas Medical Center and spokesperson for the AUA, the exam can be useful when combined with a PSA test.
3. TO TREAT OR NOT TO TREAT
Ninety percent of American men who learn they have prostate cancer request treatment. Which treatment to get depends on many variables, including age, general health, and the stage of the cancer. You're at high risk if an immediate family member suffered from the disease. Ethnicity matters, too: African-Americans have a 60% greater likelihood of having prostate cancer than Caucasians and of having its more aggressive form. Treatment options include traditional and high-tech surgery, radiation, hormone therapy, and cryotherapy (freezing).
Given the side-effects, men should discuss all options with their doctor before blood is drawn. To treat or not should be based on the patient's "wants and wishes," not just official guidelines, Dr. Thrasher notes. This can be a fairly complicated discussion, especially within the time constraints of routine visits. But you should insist on having it.
Tomorrow we'll talk about the benefits of green tea.
Have a good Monday.
Blessings,
Rick
From Parade Magazine, June 21, 2009
It's one of the most common cancers in men, so if a simple blood test tells you whether you have it or not, you take the test, right? Not necessarily. In fact, the medical world is quite divided over whether it always makes sense to test for cancer of the prostate.
The controversy could be confusing to a generation of American men who were taught that early detection is important and that all men over 50 should be tested. Last year, there were 186,320 new cases of prostate cancer and more than 28,000 deaths.
But there's another way to look at the numbers. While a man has a 17% chance of getting the disease in his lifetime, he has only a 3% chance of dying from it, according to the journal American Family Physician. Many cases are very slow-growing and never actually cause any symptoms. In fact, well over half of elderly American men have prostate cancer, but most of them die of something else.
Many men may be better off not even knowing that something is growing in the walnut-sized gland located below their bladder. For one thing, the commonly given PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test is not very accurate. For another, most men who test positive want to get treatment, and treatment has risks that sometimes far outweigh its benefits, including erectile dysfunction, incontinence, bowel problems, and, rarely, death. Telling a man he has cancer, even if the odds of his dying from it are slim, affects anxiety levels, self-perception, and insurance status, adds Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, author of Should I Be Tested for Cancer? Maybe Not and Here's Why.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends against prostate screening for men 75 and over and takes no position on screening for younger men, due to "insufficient evidence" of whether it does any good.
"We've led the public to believe that early detection is the solution for all our problems with cancer," Welch says. "But it can create as many problems as it solves."
Not everyone agrees. Recently, the American Urological Association (AUA) not only reaffirmed its support for the PSA test but even lowered the age at which it should be recommended, from 50 to 40.
So what's a man to do? Obviously, the decision to screen or not should be talked over with a doctor. Here are some facts to consider:
1. THE TEST'S RELIABILITY
Since the late 1980s, doctors have relied primarily on the PSA blood test, which measures the level of prostate-specific antigen in the blood as an indication of whether a man has cancer. But an elevated PSA level can indicate other problems, too, including infection, inflammation, or a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate. In fact, evidence suggests that up to 70% of men with PSA values greater than the traditional cutoff of 4 ng/mL do not have cancer. The opposite is also true: A low PSA is no guarantee that you don't have cancer.
Experts advise against using a single test result as the basis for further action. The AUA recommends that testing intervals be individualized and that doctors monitor "PSA velocity"--the rate at which the level rises over time. For example, if the PSA rises rapidly over a short period, a biopsy may be called for, even if levels are low.
2. THE VALUE OF A PHYSICAL EXAM
The old-fashioned digital rectal exam (DRE) for prostate problems--in which a doctor inserts a finger into a man's rectum and examines the prostate for lumps, bumps, asymmetry, or other abnormalities--is far from perfect, given how dependent it is on the doctor's experience and the fact that only part of the gland can be examined this way. Indeed, studies show that 72% to 82% of patients who agreed to a biopsy because of a DRE exam didn't have prostate cancer. Still, according to Dr. Brantley Thrasher, chairman of the urology department at the University of Kansas Medical Center and spokesperson for the AUA, the exam can be useful when combined with a PSA test.
3. TO TREAT OR NOT TO TREAT
Ninety percent of American men who learn they have prostate cancer request treatment. Which treatment to get depends on many variables, including age, general health, and the stage of the cancer. You're at high risk if an immediate family member suffered from the disease. Ethnicity matters, too: African-Americans have a 60% greater likelihood of having prostate cancer than Caucasians and of having its more aggressive form. Treatment options include traditional and high-tech surgery, radiation, hormone therapy, and cryotherapy (freezing).
Given the side-effects, men should discuss all options with their doctor before blood is drawn. To treat or not should be based on the patient's "wants and wishes," not just official guidelines, Dr. Thrasher notes. This can be a fairly complicated discussion, especially within the time constraints of routine visits. But you should insist on having it.
Tomorrow we'll talk about the benefits of green tea.
Have a good Monday.
Blessings,
Rick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)