6 ms·

I don't understand this thinking at all. Most prostate cancers are a non-issue if caught and treated early. As my father's doctor told him - prostate cancer, if

I don't understand this thinking at all. Most prostate cancers are a non-issue if caught and treated early. As my father's doctor told him - prostate cancer, if caught early, is largely a disease you die with, not a disease you die from. The PSA is the best tool we have for early diagnosis and treatment. I have the test done as part of my annual checkup and have done so for the past 15 years. Let me put it this way - it's a heckuva lot less invasive than a colonoscopy!

hef19898 5y ago
And I recommend both! No matter how invasive the test, cancer is worse.
- compiler-guy 5y ago
  Malignant cancer is certainly worse, but many prostate cancers that are exposed by this test are totally benign.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    And not discovering early might very well mean the cancer becomes a lot more serious. Never understood the fear of medical exams.
    - compiler-guy 5y ago
      Over treatment is a real issue and can create more serious issues that the original problem.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  There absolutely are things worse than cancer.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Depends on the cancer, doesn't it?
mbauman 5y ago
The problem is twofold: the test is notoriously flakey, and the cancer is frequently not an issue. You're also absolutely right that many more men die with prostate cancer than from it — but that's most commonly _without_ treatment or even knowledge of it! The trouble is exactly that it _can_ manifest early and it can become aggressive and that's when it's crucial to catch and treat.
landemva 5y ago
For decades the cancer treatment industry has beat the drum of early diagnosis and treatment. I looked into statistics a few years ago, and the drum beat appears correct for skin cancer. I couldnt find statistical benefits of early diagnosis for internal cancers. The statisticians remove people from the counts if they die during treatment. So the 'early diagnosis' numbers were meaningless because they stop considering all the people in the original group.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Early diagnosis can give a false impression by increasing the time between when you're diagnosed and when you die, simply by bringing forward the former without changing the latter. However, for diseases like Hodgkins where we have what is in effect just a cure, albeit a fairly drastic one (I had Hodgkins in my mid-20s, I'm now in my 40s) clearly early diagnosis isn't just playing with the statistics. If I hadn't been diagnosed, they couldn't cure it, and then I'd almost certainly just be dead. So the answer is it's complicated.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  The cynic would say it's a scam to transfer wealth from the cancer-afflicted to the medical industrial complex. After seeing how both my parents' cancers played out, I can see the appeal of that idea. Years of discomfort, hundreds of hours spent in medical facilities (mostly waiting around) and expensive medicines and fees, and in the end you're still just as dead.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    But that simply isn’t true for many types of cancer if you catch early.
ppierald 5y ago
Get your colonoscopy. Period. Don't let people tell you fables about "the prep" or be afraid of something going up your butt. "The prep" is a bit unpleasant for a couple of hours, but no big deal. The actual procedure is done under propofol. Consider that part the best nap you will ever get. You will either get a clean bill of health, or the doctors will find something that is easily treated right then and there. The stigma (especially of men) about this procedure will lead to countless numbers of them to die from something that doesn't have to be. Get the procedure when your doctor says. Just do it. Please.
- jjtheblunt 5y ago
  i believe (from experience) that propofol is massive overkill for what can be done easily with versed, making an even easier total win, to your point!
  - zwieback 5y ago
    Yeah, didn't like the aftereffects of Propofol the first time I had it so I did it without sedation the second time. Saves time as well.
- taylodl 5y ago
  I've had my colonoscopy - I speak from experience when I say the PSA test is a heckuva lot less invasive! With that said, the colonoscopy wasn't bad at all - not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. They found a polyp, extracted it and did a biopsy, and found it to be benign. Now I have to have a colonoscopy every 5 years instead of every 10. Yay!!! :)
- taylodl 5y ago
  I should have also mentioned that my colonoscopy was done under a sedative, I wasn't knocked out - so I got to see the whole thing! The doctor provided a narrative as we went along. At one point they were having issues making a turn and I could feel it and let them know so the nurse squoze my guts in some way to allow them to get around it. They even showed me the polyp when they found it (I was laying on my left side with the monitors right in front of me - so I could watch the whole thing.) Except for that one turn I didn't feel a thing.
99_00 5y ago
>I don't understand this thinking at all. Which thinking do you not understand?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hef19898 5y ago

And I recommend both! No matter how invasive the test, cancer is worse.

compiler-guy 5y ago
Malignant cancer is certainly worse, but many prostate cancers that are exposed by this test are totally benign.
- hef19898 5y ago
  And not discovering early might very well mean the cancer becomes a lot more serious. Never understood the fear of medical exams.
  - compiler-guy 5y ago
    Over treatment is a real issue and can create more serious issues that the original problem.
throwawayboise 5y ago
There absolutely are things worse than cancer.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Depends on the cancer, doesn't it?

mbauman 5y ago

The problem is twofold: the test is notoriously flakey, and the cancer is frequently not an issue. You're also absolutely right that many more men die with prostate cancer than from it — but that's most commonly _without_ treatment or even knowledge of it! The trouble is exactly that it _can_ manifest early and it can become aggressive and that's when it's crucial to catch and treat.

landemva 5y ago

For decades the cancer treatment industry has beat the drum of early diagnosis and treatment. I looked into statistics a few years ago, and the drum beat appears correct for skin cancer. I couldnt find statistical benefits of early diagnosis for internal cancers. The statisticians remove people from the counts if they die during treatment. So the 'early diagnosis' numbers were meaningless because they stop considering all the people in the original group.

tialaramex 5y ago
Early diagnosis can give a false impression by increasing the time between when you're diagnosed and when you die, simply by bringing forward the former without changing the latter. However, for diseases like Hodgkins where we have what is in effect just a cure, albeit a fairly drastic one (I had Hodgkins in my mid-20s, I'm now in my 40s) clearly early diagnosis isn't just playing with the statistics. If I hadn't been diagnosed, they couldn't cure it, and then I'd almost certainly just be dead. So the answer is it's complicated.
throwawayboise 5y ago
The cynic would say it's a scam to transfer wealth from the cancer-afflicted to the medical industrial complex. After seeing how both my parents' cancers played out, I can see the appeal of that idea. Years of discomfort, hundreds of hours spent in medical facilities (mostly waiting around) and expensive medicines and fees, and in the end you're still just as dead.
- azinman2 5y ago
  But that simply isn’t true for many types of cancer if you catch early.

ppierald 5y ago

Get your colonoscopy. Period. Don't let people tell you fables about "the prep" or be afraid of something going up your butt. "The prep" is a bit unpleasant for a couple of hours, but no big deal. The actual procedure is done under propofol. Consider that part the best nap you will ever get. You will either get a clean bill of health, or the doctors will find something that is easily treated right then and there. The stigma (especially of men) about this procedure will lead to countless numbers of them to die from something that doesn't have to be. Get the procedure when your doctor says. Just do it. Please.

jjtheblunt 5y ago
i believe (from experience) that propofol is massive overkill for what can be done easily with versed, making an even easier total win, to your point!
- zwieback 5y ago
  Yeah, didn't like the aftereffects of Propofol the first time I had it so I did it without sedation the second time. Saves time as well.
taylodl 5y ago
I've had my colonoscopy - I speak from experience when I say the PSA test is a heckuva lot less invasive! With that said, the colonoscopy wasn't bad at all - not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. They found a polyp, extracted it and did a biopsy, and found it to be benign. Now I have to have a colonoscopy every 5 years instead of every 10. Yay!!! :)
taylodl 5y ago
I should have also mentioned that my colonoscopy was done under a sedative, I wasn't knocked out - so I got to see the whole thing! The doctor provided a narrative as we went along. At one point they were having issues making a turn and I could feel it and let them know so the nurse squoze my guts in some way to allow them to get around it. They even showed me the polyp when they found it (I was laying on my left side with the monitors right in front of me - so I could watch the whole thing.) Except for that one turn I didn't feel a thing.

99_00 5y ago

>I don't understand this thinking at all. Which thinking do you not understand?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]