I have joined the fraternity

Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
joined the fraternity.

In July I wrote in this forum and asked for opinions and advise of what I
may expect from a visit to an Urologist my GP referred me to due to my PSA
reading. Your advice was very welcome and helpful.

Well I had the consultation and a week later a biopsy of the prostate with
the following result:

1 core of 10 (40%) positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc prostate.

Uro has made appointment for Bone scan and Chest x-ray 18 September and I
have an appointment to again see him on the 24 September.

My Urologist (Specialising in Cancer of Prostate) explained the options and
concluded that in his opinion he suggests a Robotic Radical Prostatectomy)
that he is a specialist in and claims to be one of the first in Australia
using this technique. www.harewoodurology.com.au.
He explained that Brach therapy is not a viable option due to the unusual
shape of my prostate. He also is not in favour of radiation therapy in my
case due to possible later complication.

So, although I am in shock, I am reading and trying to educate myself and
most likely have the operation early January 2008.

Regards to you all,

John from Australia

2001-3.7
2002-4.9
8/2002 Biopsy: 12 cores Negative
2003-3.8
2004-2.6
2005-3.6
2006-3.4
3/2007-6.3
7/2007-6.7
8/2007 Biopsy: 1 core of 10 (40%)positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc
prostate.

"J. Connor" <spamkiller@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:60NDi.31821$4A1.719@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
> joined the fraternity.

Welcome to the club. You have passed the initiation rite and will be issued
a permanent ID.

Damn, I am sorry to read this. The way your PSAs varied, I was really
hoping that it was not cancer. Since cancer is essentially a bunch of cells
reproducing out of control, you would expect a constant increase in PSA.
But, as in your case, sometimes that does not happen.

However, catching it at a 6+ PSA, T1, and 6 is pretty damned good. If you
are in good shape, you pretty much have the whole range of treatment options
from which to pick. And, if you are interested in a radiological option,
you should not settle for a surgeon's opinion. Get thee to a radiologist
and get his opinion as to size and shape. That bit about 'future problems'
concerns me about the ethics of your uro. I had no choice because I was so
young that future radiation problems would hit me when I was about your age.
But you will have been well past the average lifespan of a man before they'd
hit you.

That is not to say that I am advocating radiation. On the contrary, I
believe surgery is your best option. Your numbers are really good. About
half of those who have come across this NG in the last six years have had a
PSA below 6, but the average PSA has been 56! And, only 2% have had a
Gleason below a 6. Your stage is the lowest possible if it's a T1a. But,
you need to find out more about it from a truthful source before making an
educated decision.

Good luck, down under. Our prayers will be with you (though they may take
12 hours to get there).



--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04 (06/12/2007)
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:21:54 GMT, "J. Connor" <spamkiller@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
>joined the fraternity.
>
>In July I wrote in this forum and asked for opinions and advise of what I
>may expect from a visit to an Urologist my GP referred me to due to my PSA
>reading. Your advice was very welcome and helpful.
>
>Well I had the consultation and a week later a biopsy of the prostate with
>the following result:
>
>1 core of 10 (40%) positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc prostate.
>
>Uro has made appointment for Bone scan and Chest x-ray 18 September and I
>have an appointment to again see him on the 24 September.
>
>My Urologist (Specialising in Cancer of Prostate) explained the options and
>concluded that in his opinion he suggests a Robotic Radical Prostatectomy)
>that he is a specialist in and claims to be one of the first in Australia
>using this technique. www.harewoodurology.com.au.
>He explained that Brach therapy is not a viable option due to the unusual
>shape of my prostate. He also is not in favour of radiation therapy in my
>case due to possible later complication.
>
>So, although I am in shock, I am reading and trying to educate myself and
>most likely have the operation early January 2008.
>
>Regards to you all,
>
>John from Australia
>
>2001-3.7
>2002-4.9
>8/2002 Biopsy: 12 cores Negative
>2003-3.8
>2004-2.6
>2005-3.6
>2006-3.4
>3/2007-6.3
>7/2007-6.7
>8/2007 Biopsy: 1 core of 10 (40%)positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc
>prostate.
>

John,

Sorry you're in the club mate but welcome just the same. I'm a
relative newbie here, but I have recently made it through RLRP and
almost three months of rehab to date.

In my mind if you opt for surgery, RLRP is the way to go. The key is
the surgeon. In my mind, he must have a significant number of cases
under his belt. He is an artist and the complexity of the procedure
demands it.

I found this ng to be the single most informative place to ask
questions and get useful answers, as well as being pointed to
reference tools that helped me learn about my plight.

I wish you the best.

--
PSA @ 45 yrs. = 4.7 02/06/2007
Biopsy 03/16/2007 G7(3+4),T1c
RLRP 06/12/2007 G7(3+4),T2cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA 7/16/2007 = <0.1

On Sep 6, 1:21 am, "J. Connor" <spamkil...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> My Urologist (Specialising in Cancer of Prostate) explained the options and
> concluded that in his opinion he suggests a Robotic Radical Prostatectomy)
> that he is a specialist in and claims to be one of the first in Australia
> using this technique.www.harewoodurology.com.au.
> He explained that Brach therapy is not a viable option due to the unusual
> shape of my prostate. He also is not in favour of radiation therapy in my
> case due to possible later complication.

John, I concur with SteveK that you should also consult with other PC
experts before committing to surgery as your only option per your Uro.
I think
that the Uro is too biased to say radiation (external or brachy) is
not an option.

If after you talked to these other experts, and then decide with
surgery, then
you will feel better because then you know you made an INFORMED
decision.

On September 6, John Connor wrote:

> Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
> joined the fraternity.

Welcome to the club no one wishes to join.

For authoritative and objective information, I recommend that you refer
to the "Newly Diagnosed" section of the Prostate Cancer Research
Institute (PCRI) at:
http://prostate-cancer.org/education...ewly_diagnosed

Good luck!

Regards,

Steve J

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:46dff082$0$4029$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "J. Connor" <spamkiller@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:60NDi.31821$4A1.719@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>> Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
>> joined the fraternity.
>
> Welcome to the club. You have passed the initiation rite and will be
> issued a permanent ID.
>
> Damn, I am sorry to read this. The way your PSAs varied, I was really
> hoping that it was not cancer. Since cancer is essentially a bunch of
> cells reproducing out of control, you would expect a constant increase in
> PSA. But, as in your case, sometimes that does not happen.
>
> However, catching it at a 6+ PSA, T1, and 6 is pretty damned good. If you
> are in good shape, you pretty much have the whole range of treatment
> options from which to pick. And, if you are interested in a radiological
> option, you should not settle for a surgeon's opinion. Get thee to a
> radiologist and get his opinion as to size and shape. That bit about
> 'future problems' concerns me about the ethics of your uro. I had no
> choice because I was so young that future radiation problems would hit me
> when I was about your age.
<snip>


Hi Steve,

How young were you? I am 58 and will have the Davinci RP shortly.

The regions of cancer in my prostate were at the median, right in the center
of the thing, so radiation of any type was discounted because of potential
damage to the uretha. Besides that, I really don't like the idea of having
the organ that has the cancer sitting there in my body.

My decision - making process involved long talks with a guy who had just
gone through the thing, literally within a couple of months of my
approaching him, and some very good discussions with Karina, the program
director at the Center for Prostate Cancer at the University of Minnesota.
Also, the doctor was quite candid and pragmatic about the treatment options
although he is a surgeon. Then there was research on the Internet including
this august body.

Thanks,
Steve Tew

"Steve tew" <notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kOydnTiDqqIYA33bnZ2dnUVZ_v2unZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:46dff082$0$4029$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> "J. Connor" <spamkiller@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:60NDi.31821$4A1.719@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>>> Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
>>> joined the fraternity.
>>
>> Welcome to the club. You have passed the initiation rite and will be
>> issued a permanent ID.
>>
>> Damn, I am sorry to read this. The way your PSAs varied, I was really
>> hoping that it was not cancer. Since cancer is essentially a bunch of
>> cells reproducing out of control, you would expect a constant increase in
>> PSA. But, as in your case, sometimes that does not happen.
>>
>> However, catching it at a 6+ PSA, T1, and 6 is pretty damned good. If
>> you are in good shape, you pretty much have the whole range of treatment
>> options from which to pick. And, if you are interested in a radiological
>> option, you should not settle for a surgeon's opinion. Get thee to a
>> radiologist and get his opinion as to size and shape. That bit about
>> 'future problems' concerns me about the ethics of your uro. I had no
>> choice because I was so young that future radiation problems would hit me
>> when I was about your age.
> <snip>
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> How young were you? I am 58 and will have the Davinci RP shortly.
>
> The regions of cancer in my prostate were at the median, right in the
> center of the thing, so radiation of any type was discounted because of
> potential damage to the uretha. Besides that, I really don't like the
> idea of having the organ that has the cancer sitting there in my body.
>
> My decision - making process involved long talks with a guy who had just
> gone through the thing, literally within a couple of months of my
> approaching him, and some very good discussions with Karina, the program
> director at the Center for Prostate Cancer at the University of Minnesota.
> Also, the doctor was quite candid and pragmatic about the treatment
> options although he is a surgeon. Then there was research on the Internet
> including this august body.
>
> Thanks,
> Steve Tew
>
>
>


At diagonosis, I was 46. I am 52 now, ready to turn 53 in 22 days.

--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04 (06/12/2007)
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

Steve tew wrote:
> My decision - making process involved long talks with a guy who had just
> gone through the thing, literally within a couple of months of my
> approaching him, and some very good discussions with Karina, the program
> director at the Center for Prostate Cancer at the University of Minnesota.
> Also, the doctor was quite candid and pragmatic about the treatment options
> although he is a surgeon. Then there was research on the Internet including
> this august body.

I'm concerned about your apparent lack of prostate cancer book research.
Every one of the dozen-plus PC books I bought, plus the ones I skimmed
in the bookstores, added valuable -- often invaluable -- pieces to my
two decision puzzles (first and adjuvant treatment choices). There was
no way I would base my future on any individual's -- or small
collection's thereof -- anecdotal experiences, because they are
meaningless in predicting what may happen to the next guy. Only
large-scale statistics can do that, and that's where the books and
studies come in (I presume your internet research included many scores,
if not hundreds, of study abstracts). Nor would (or could) I heavily
bias my choices on any single author, regardless of his credentials and
*especially* if he is not widely and highly regarded by his peers. I
made sure my book list included authors from surgical, radiological, and
medical specialties, as did my consultations with live oncologists.

I also dug deeply into my own short and long term priorities/criteria,
without which no rational choice can be made. Only with an understanding
of how I want to both live and die could I compare suites of treatment
benefit and side effect statistics.

I.P.

Really suggest getting a second opinion. A T1 stage and bone scan
doesn't fit, in my opinion, and how unusually shaped can your P. be?
Brachytherapy is typically done using a grid pattern.

Please read my 8/31 post for another idea.


Determined

Occasionally the prostate sits in such a way as to eliminate brachytherapy
as an option. You can always have a second opinion. Off the top of my head I
don't remember the position of the prostate, but if it is sitting too close
to something else they don't like to do it because of the danger of damaging
another body part. It's hard to believe as we are told that body parts are
here, here, here, and there, when in actuality they are sort of here and
slightly over there.

I wish you luck!
Bev


"J. Connor" <spamkiller@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:60NDi.31821$4A1.719@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Hello my now fellow travellers on the journey of prostate cancer. I have
> joined the fraternity.
>
> In July I wrote in this forum and asked for opinions and advise of what I
> may expect from a visit to an Urologist my GP referred me to due to my PSA
> reading. Your advice was very welcome and helpful.
>
> Well I had the consultation and a week later a biopsy of the prostate with
> the following result:
>
> 1 core of 10 (40%) positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc prostate.
>
> Uro has made appointment for Bone scan and Chest x-ray 18 September and I
> have an appointment to again see him on the 24 September.
>
> My Urologist (Specialising in Cancer of Prostate) explained the options
and
> concluded that in his opinion he suggests a Robotic Radical Prostatectomy)
> that he is a specialist in and claims to be one of the first in Australia
> using this technique. www.harewoodurology.com.au.
> He explained that Brach therapy is not a viable option due to the unusual
> shape of my prostate. He also is not in favour of radiation therapy in my
> case due to possible later complication.
>
> So, although I am in shock, I am reading and trying to educate myself and
> most likely have the operation early January 2008.
>
> Regards to you all,
>
> John from Australia
>
> 2001-3.7
> 2002-4.9
> 8/2002 Biopsy: 12 cores Negative
> 2003-3.8
> 2004-2.6
> 2005-3.6
> 2006-3.4
> 3/2007-6.3
> 7/2007-6.7
> 8/2007 Biopsy: 1 core of 10 (40%)positive, Gleason 6, Stage T1, 38cc
> prostate.
>
>

Hi John,

I would like to welcome you as well to a large world-wide fraternity.
1 in 6 men are hit with this disease in their lifetime, thus it is
very common. I'm sorry you had to join, but there is a lot of help
available, as you have seen.

With 1 core positive and the likely perception of your doctor that the
cancer is contained in the prostate, surgery is a viable option. I
didn't catch your age, but the younger you are, many doctors suggest
surgery as a treatment as a slightly better hope for a "cure." At age
54, I chose the da Vinci robotic surgery because I wanted the deep,
post surgery pathology of the prostate that only surgery can afford.
I wanted to know better what I was up against for the rest of my life.

As others have stated, the choice is completely yours. Take a deep
breath and look at all the treatment options afforded to you in your
area and according to your monetary capability. You may want at the
following web site for an easy review of the various treatments and
likely outcomes:
http://www.prostate-cancer.com/

In addition, my web site (http://pca-info.blogspot.com) has
information and links to many resources, including other online world-
wide support groups.

I wish you the best in your treatment decision!

Let us on this forum know if there is anything we can do to help in
terms of information or general questions.

Kind regards,

Idaho
-------
Da Vinci Surgery July 31, 2007... 54 on surgery day
PSA 4.3 Gleason 3+3=6 T2a Confined to Prostate
My awareness web site: http://pca-info.blogspot.com

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:XA3Ei.122$2A5.34@newsfe06.lga...
> Steve tew wrote:
>> My decision - making process involved long talks with a guy who had just
>> gone through the thing, literally within a couple of months of my
>> approaching him, and some very good discussions with Karina, the program
>> director at the Center for Prostate Cancer at the University of
>> Minnesota. Also, the doctor was quite candid and pragmatic about the
>> treatment options although he is a surgeon. Then there was research on
>> the Internet including this august body.
>
> I'm concerned about your apparent lack of prostate cancer book research.
> Every one of the dozen-plus PC books I bought, plus the ones I skimmed in
> the bookstores, added valuable -- often invaluable -- pieces to my two
> decision puzzles (first and adjuvant treatment choices). There was no way
> I would base my future on any individual's -- or small collection's
> thereof -- anecdotal experiences, because they are meaningless in
> predicting what may happen to the next guy. Only large-scale statistics
> can do that, and that's where the books and studies come in (I presume
> your internet research included many scores, if not hundreds, of study
> abstracts). Nor would (or could) I heavily bias my choices on any single
> author, regardless of his credentials and *especially* if he is not widely
> and highly regarded by his peers. I made sure my book list included
> authors from surgical, radiological, and medical specialties, as did my
> consultations with live oncologists.
>
> I also dug deeply into my own short and long term priorities/criteria,
> without which no rational choice can be made. Only with an understanding
> of how I want to both live and die could I compare suites of treatment
> benefit and side effect statistics.
>
> I.P.

I appreciate your concern, but I wonder if any further research of existing
research would alter the determination that I have a confirmed cancer in my
prostate, and that I don't want to leave it in my body. I do have one book,
100 Questions About Prostate Cancer, which I have read through. If there is
a body of knowledge in printed form which may have information which could
alter my decision what would it be?

I have read much about the PH diet, and some clinics in Mexico and
California whch claim to have cancer cures, but I don't have conficence in
them. The radiation and chemical treatments are not suitable for my case,
nor is cryo. That leaves two options, do nothing, or cut it out. unless you
know of something else...

Were you my counselor, what would you recommend I do?

Thanks,
Steve

Steve tew wrote:
> I wonder if any further research of existing
> research would alter the determination that I have a confirmed cancer in my
> prostate, and that I don't want to leave it in my body. I do have one book,
> 100 Questions About Prostate Cancer, which I have read through. If there is
> a body of knowledge in printed form which may have information which could
> alter my decision what would it be?

I'm not trying to influence your decision -- that's a very personal
choice; I'm just trying to influence your *knowledge*, by reading more
PC books, for the reasons I stated and so you don't second guess your
first treatment choice if and when it leads to medical problems, QOL
problems, and/or ultimate recurrence. If you're sufficiently certain of
your treatment choice that you will have no serious regrets if problems
occur, and if that sufficiency come from knowledge (which should only
increase) rather than from emotion (which can roam all *over*
Hellenback), then maybe the other books are superfluous. I wasn't
sufficiently certain of my first treatment until I read many books, and
wasn't certain of my second, just-in-case, no-PSA, no-mets, treatment
until I pretty much picked the internet and this forum clean of the
knowledge available at that time.

> I have read much about the PH diet, and some clinics in Mexico and
> California whch claim to have cancer cures, but I don't have conficence in
> them.

Nor did my doc, who is a urology professor, an oncologist, and a very
busy PC researcher working with a large body of physicians in a major city.

> Were you my counselor, what would you recommend I do?

Read. I virtually never deign to recommend a treatment or counsel
against a (mainstream) treatment. I do my best to offer facts and some
opinions, try to distinguish between the two, and let others' decisions
fall where they may. It's they, not I, who must live, suffer, and/or die
with them. You'll notice that I haven't even mentioned my case,
treatment(s), or results, because, with a sample size of one, they mean
nothing to your case.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
newsnLEi.82$G91.68@newsfe06.lga...
>You'll notice that I haven't even mentioned my case, treatment(s), or
>results, because, with a sample size of one, they mean nothing to your
>case.
>
> I.P.

Every anecdotal tale is meaningful. Each data element in all of the surveys
and studies in existence represents a story. Each story has merrit. The
hearer is the sole judge of the story's personal worth.

I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.
Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
based. Ask an aviator.

Steve

"Steve tew" <notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news9OdnfN_aYxsnnnbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.

Thank you for your service to our country (and those around the world).

> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
> based. Ask an aviator.

Ah. A debate on anecdotal evidence between to military scientists. I think
I'm going to enjoy this.

Steve tew wrote:
> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
> newsnLEi.82$G91.68@newsfe06.lga...
>> You'll notice that I haven't even mentioned my case, treatment(s), or
>> results, because, with a sample size of one, they mean nothing to your
>> case.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> Every anecdotal tale is meaningful. Each data element in all of the surveys
> and studies in existence represents a story. Each story has merrit. The
> hearer is the sole judge of the story's personal worth.
>
> I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.
> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
> based. Ask an aviator.

Meaningless emotionally, but presuming a study is done right, only its
statistics help others draw inferences about their outcomes. Whether one
guy lives for 15 years after post-RP ADT or another guy recurs early in
an ADT course tells a third guy zip about his odds. Anecdotes may reveal
possible extremes, but do nothing for likelihoods. Anyone who chooses an
action or predicts an outcome based on one story or a small collection
thereof may as well use tea leaves. Would you base your engine overhaul
schedules on Ensign Jones' encounter with contaminated fuel or on years
of accumulated MTBF data?

Even if you would base your cancer treatment choice on a few anecdotes
.... which anecdotes would you choose?

I.P.
Another retired military officer, engineer, and statistics wanker

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "Steve tew" <notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news9OdnfN_aYxsnnnbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.
>
> Thank you for your service to our country (and those around the world).
>
>> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
>> based. Ask an aviator.
>
> Ah. A debate on anecdotal evidence between to military scientists. I think
> I'm going to enjoy this.

Given that "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron where predictions are
concerned, I suspect there is no debate, and would be surprised if
anything new surfaced in this old topic.

Of course, many outsiders may argue that "military scientist" is also an
oxymoron. ;-)

I. P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:Yn_Ei.37$aH4.26@newsfe05.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>> "Steve tew" <notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news9OdnfN_aYxsnnnbnZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>>> I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.
>>
>> Thank you for your service to our country (and those around the world).
>>
>>> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
>>> based. Ask an aviator.
>>
>> Ah. A debate on anecdotal evidence between to military scientists. I
>> think I'm going to enjoy this.
>
> Given that "anecdotal evidence" is an oxymoron where predictions are
> concerned, I suspect there is no debate,

You are correct. There is no debate, but not for the reason you state.



>and would be surprised if anything new surfaced in this old topic.
>
> Of course, many outsiders may argue that "military scientist" is also an
> oxymoron. ;-)
>
> I. P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
newsh_Ei.36$aH4.30@newsfe05.lga...
> Steve tew wrote:
>> "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
>> newsnLEi.82$G91.68@newsfe06.lga...
>>> You'll notice that I haven't even mentioned my case, treatment(s), or
>>> results, because, with a sample size of one, they mean nothing to your
>>> case.
>>>
>>> I.P.
>>
>> Every anecdotal tale is meaningful. Each data element in all of the
>> surveys and studies in existence represents a story. Each story has
>> merrit. The hearer is the sole judge of the story's personal worth.
>>
>> I was a Quality Assurance Officer in a US Navy patrol squadron.
>> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
>> based. Ask an aviator.
>
> Meaningless emotionally, but presuming a study is done right, only its
> statistics help others draw inferences about their outcomes.

Bullshit.


>Whether one guy lives for 15 years after post-RP ADT or another guy recurs
>early in an ADT course tells a third guy zip about his odds. Anecdotes may
>reveal possible extremes, but do nothing for likelihoods. Anyone who
>chooses an action or predicts an outcome based on one story or a small
>collection thereof may as well use tea leaves. Would you base your engine
>overhaul schedules on Ensign Jones' encounter with contaminated fuel or on
>years of accumulated MTBF data?
>
> Even if you would base your cancer treatment choice on a few anecdotes ...
> which anecdotes would you choose?
>
> I.P.
> Another retired military officer, engineer, and statistics wanker
>
>

On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:17:54 -0500, "Steve tew"
<notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip......
>>> Statistical analysis is meaningless without the stories on which it is
>>> based. Ask an aviator.
>>
>> Meaningless emotionally, but presuming a study is done right, only its
>> statistics help others draw inferences about their outcomes.
>
>Bullshit.

Bullshit from an aviator... run for cover!

Just

I tend to lean more towards the anecdotal than the statistics in this
matter as I find the models that have been presented for statistical
analysis's are poor at best, very limited in size for the most part and
have an inherent bias by nature. The sample population is not consistent
across the spectrum and usually not maintained for the duration of
monitoring process. One only has to look at things like; definitions of
cure, curative intent and probable cure to see that any conclusions of
these studies are directed towards a treatment opinion being made
available for the monetary gains they hope to obtain by misleading the
uninformed patients. It should be obvious after reading all these studies
over the past few years with all there hipe that we haven't moved any
closer to effectively treating prostate cancer.

Ron S.

Steve Kramer wrote:
> Ah. A debate on anecdotal evidence between to military scientists.
> I think I'm going to enjoy this.

Steve tew wrote:
> Bullshit.

Was that worth the wait, Steve? ;-)
Maybe next time ...

I.P.

ronju99 wrote:
> I tend to lean more towards the anecdotal than the statistics in this
> matter

So, what does any one man's PC say about another's best treatment or his
prognosis?

If a guy has Treatment X and lives another 30 years, that merely
*implies* (it does not prove) that Treatment X is not 100% fatal. If a
guy dies of PC after Treatment X, it merely proves that Treatment X is
not 100% curative. Beyond those no-brainers, neither says squat about
the next guy's future.

Statistics derived from 10,000 or 80,000 guys' outcomes after Treatment
X give the next guy a range of outcomes, likelihoods thereof, and
confidence levels in those likelihoods.

Which is more useful in the next guy's treatment selection?

I.P.

Hello again, John:

And I'm sorry it turned out this way. I've been away for a few days, and
have read most of what the others have written. When I was diagnosed, my
urologist did two things that helped me a lot. First, he set me up with an
appointment with a radiation oncologist so that I would hear an opinion
about at least one other treatment. The second thing he did was to let me
know that it was okay with him if I shopped around for a different
surgeon -- though he would be willing and able to do an open procedure.

I hope your uro is treating you the same way. A rad onc should be able to
tell you about anything concerning shape issues -- it may be correct, but
radiation imaging has come a long way.

But with your numbers, anyway, you're probably a good candidate for the
surgery.

Good luck with it, and please keep us posted.

--charlie

--
6/2006 PSA 5.2, DRE suspicious
7/2006 Biopsy: *2 of 10 positive, Gleason 7(3+4)
11/2006 LRP: *Clear margins
PSA < 0.01 on 1/2007, 3/2007, 6/2007
so far, so good ...

"ronju99" <jlspane@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b084b727fa83599e76777d7cb312156c@localhost.ta lkaboutsupport.com...
>I tend to lean more towards the anecdotal than the statistics in this
> matter as I find the models that have been presented for statistical
> analysis's are poor at best, very limited in size for the most part and
> have an inherent bias by nature. The sample population is not consistent
> across the spectrum and usually not maintained for the duration of
> monitoring process. One only has to look at things like; definitions of
> cure, curative intent and probable cure to see that any conclusions of
> these studies are directed towards a treatment opinion being made
> available for the monetary gains they hope to obtain by misleading the
> uninformed patients. It should be obvious after reading all these studies
> over the past few years with all there hipe that we haven't moved any
> closer to effectively treating prostate cancer.
>

Excellent points, Ron. We can fairly well rely on each and every man's
accounting here. They may not be the same as any other man here, but at
least we are fairly certain the statistics (1 of 1) are always true and
based on criteria that has nothing to do with selling books or getting
grants. As we read of the experience of others, backed up by their
histories, readers get a remarkable accounting of what is possible, likely,
and not likely.

I think you just put this debate to rest!



--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04 (06/12/2007)
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

Steve Kramer wrote:
> "ronju99" <jlspane@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:b084b727fa83599e76777d7cb312156c@localhost.ta lkaboutsupport.com...
>> I tend to lean more towards the anecdotal than the statistics in this
>> matter as I find the models that have been presented for statistical
>> analysis's are poor at best, very limited in size for the most part and
>> have an inherent bias by nature. The sample population is not consistent
>> across the spectrum and usually not maintained for the duration of
>> monitoring process. One only has to look at things like; definitions of
>> cure, curative intent and probable cure to see that any conclusions of
>> these studies are directed towards a treatment opinion being made
>> available for the monetary gains they hope to obtain by misleading the
>> uninformed patients. It should be obvious after reading all these studies
>> over the past few years with all there hipe that we haven't moved any
>> closer to effectively treating prostate cancer.
>>
>
> Excellent points, Ron. We can fairly well rely on each and every man's
> accounting here. They may not be the same as any other man here, but at
> least we are fairly certain the statistics (1 of 1) are always true and
> based on criteria that has nothing to do with selling books or getting
> grants. As we read of the experience of others, backed up by their
> histories, readers get a remarkable accounting of what is possible, likely,
> and not likely.
>
> I think you just put this debate to rest!

I strongly caution newbies making treatment decisions not to succumb to
this irrational concept. Your lives may be at stake.

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:MKnFi.48$Yw6.25@newsfe04.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>> "ronju99" <jlspane@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:b084b727fa83599e76777d7cb312156c@localhost.ta lkaboutsupport.com...
>>> I tend to lean more towards the anecdotal than the statistics in this
>>> matter as I find the models that have been presented for statistical
>>> analysis's are poor at best, very limited in size for the most part and
>>> have an inherent bias by nature. The sample population is not consistent
>>> across the spectrum and usually not maintained for the duration of
>>> monitoring process. One only has to look at things like; definitions of
>>> cure, curative intent and probable cure to see that any conclusions of
>>> these studies are directed towards a treatment opinion being made
>>> available for the monetary gains they hope to obtain by misleading the
>>> uninformed patients. It should be obvious after reading all these
>>> studies
>>> over the past few years with all there hipe that we haven't moved any
>>> closer to effectively treating prostate cancer.
>>>
>>
>> Excellent points, Ron. We can fairly well rely on each and every man's
>> accounting here. They may not be the same as any other man here, but at
>> least we are fairly certain the statistics (1 of 1) are always true and
>> based on criteria that has nothing to do with selling books or getting
>> grants. As we read of the experience of others, backed up by their
>> histories, readers get a remarkable accounting of what is possible,
>> likely, and not likely.
>>
>> I think you just put this debate to rest!
>
> I strongly caution newbies making treatment decisions not to succumb to
> this irrational concept. Your lives may be at stake.

My last sentence was, of course, tongue-in-cheek and intended to provoke a
counter response. But, not an insult to Ron and/or me. It is not
irrational to believe that one man's experience is possible and the
experience of 785 men is significant criteria in making decisions.

What IS irrational is dogmatically sticking to the supposed science
(actually a philosophy) of variable statistics provided by disagreeing
theorists, each who have multiple motivations for inaccurate reporting.
Until Strumm, Walsh, Scardino, and all your references, books and monographs
agree on ADT, the anecdotal, but actual, experiences of a large group of men
will reign supreme as the best indicator.


--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04 (06/12/2007)
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

I whole heartedly agree with you IP. However, you are speaking of a
hypothetical statistical analysis. That is not the real world. I'm a
realist. The people that come to this web site don't need someone to tell
them to read a book. If they are savvy enough to find this web site via
computer, I'm sure they are capable of researching the appropriate books
on the subject. They are most likely wanting to hear of others experiences
contrary to what a medical professional might or might not tell them. After
a period of time they will get a sense of what is really happening through
the dialog that transpires on this and other forums. I don't believe they
come here for our medical advise, only for our experiences that many of us
have gone through fighting this disease. It's a story that they will not
find in the medical community. They will see that there are many different
outcomes to any procedure and they may not always be as good as some
treatment options portray them to be. Probable the one problem with these
forums that can be misleading is that many members have only been treated
for the past few years with most with less than two years experience. They
can describe their experiences for their time frame but they cannot project
what their experiences will be in their future. They can only hope and pray
for positive outcomes and hope the statistics are in there favor. Provided
the statistics are not inherently flawed.

Ron S.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:VFiFi.27$Yw6.4@newsfe04.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
> > Ah. A debate on anecdotal evidence between to military scientists.
> > I think I'm going to enjoy this.
>
> Steve tew wrote:
>> Bullshit.
>
> Was that worth the wait, Steve? ;-)
> Maybe next time ...
>
> I.P.

Your ability to selectively filter the meat out of a discussion is
astounding.

Thanks,
Steve

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:17:53 -0400, "ronju99"
<jlspane@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:


>on the subject. They are most likely wanting to hear of others experiences
>contrary to what a medical professional might or might not tell them. After
>a period of time they will get a sense of what is really happening through
>the dialog that transpires on this and other forums. I don't believe they
>come here for our medical advise, only for our experiences that many of us
>have gone through fighting this disease. It's a story that they will not
>find in the medical community. They will see that there are many different
>outcomes to any procedure and they may not always be as good as some
>treatment options portray them to be.
>
>Ron S.

Exactly, Ron. I tuned out quick when the 'discussion' of statistical
analysis, drug trials, and such began to creep into almost every
thread here. Boring, too technical, and something I don't wish to
devote my time and energy now trying to catch up on to try to
understand the nuances of it.

I may be wrong, but I think someone just came here a few days ago,
shared his 'news', and within a day or so, their thread had been
flipped to another 'discussion'. Maybe this exact thread. I can't
tell, as my newsreader doesn't save posts, so I can't check.

I read this group for the human element of our personal experiences
with this cancer. Sorry for stepping on toes, but endless discussions
of government drug policy, statistical fights amonst cancer
specialists pushing their own theories and such is a time killer for
me.

Tell me instead your experience with total nerve bundle removal, the
use of tri-mix and your success with orgasm after the nerve bundles
have been removed. Or where I can get assured delivery of cheap
(overseas) generic Viagra. Even your choice of pee-pads and why. But
that's just me and I think I am feeling cranky today. Ignore as you
wish....lol

My apologies to those who enjoy the intellectual stimulation gained in
the defense of your various causes. If you can keep them from
thread spread, I promise I will seperate my wheat from your chaff...
..

HT

Hello HT,
The value of support groups -this one included- is the diversity of
the members and the diversity of their opinions. In a country where
there is not one government Department of Men's Health, where prostate
cancer-specific research is underfunded, where medical opinion about
the basics of the disease is divided to the point where one can't
decide if testing for PSA is valuable or not, where men are highly
apathetic about their health issues. Those participating here should
be more patient with the topics on hand that being only interested in
hanging their hat on an erection. Sure, very important, but so are the
other topics.

Both anecdotal results and statistical data are helpful in decision-
making processes for those participating here. If your interest is
centered in improving your sexual activity it is probably because you
are doing well in managing your disease and you are trying to improve
your quality of life. Nothing wrong with that. As you learn, we all
learn, but think then of those others that are holding a burning
candle with a short list of treatment options and come here to seek
information about surviving the disease. They have their priorities
too. Make allowances. Participate and exchange opinions. We all can
learn from that!

Wish you the best and I hope you found the cheap source of Viagra and
if you did, let us know.

RalphV
www.pcainaz.org/phpbb

On Sep 11, 7:20 am, HT <mungedNOTT...@ORTHIS.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:17:53 -0400, "ronju99"
> Exactly, Ron. I tuned out quick when the 'discussion' of statistical
> analysis, drug trials, and such began to creep into almost every
> thread here. Boring, too technical, and something I don't wish to
> devote my time and energy now trying to catch up on to try to
> understand the nuances of it.
>
> I may be wrong, but I think someone just came here a few days ago,
> shared his 'news', and within a day or so, their thread had been
> flipped to another 'discussion'. Maybe this exact thread. I can't
> tell, as my newsreader doesn't save posts, so I can't check.
>
> I read this group for the human element of