NZ HERALD: The Herald’s medical reporter, Martin Johnston, has written a balanced account on where we are with the great PSA debate. READ MORE>
Posts Tagged ‘cancer research’
Posted in New tests, tagged biological signals, Biomarkers, cancer research, catheter, diagnostic tests, lab test, Oxford Gene Technology, prostablog, prostate, prostate blog, PROSTATE CANCER, prostate cancer screening, REUTERS, Screening debate on October 5, 2010 | Leave a Comment »
REUTERS: British scientists say they have developed a lab test that can accurately distinguish prostate cancer from healthy tissue and other prostate conditions. READ MORE>
Researchers at a genetics and diagnostics firm Oxford Gene Technology say the set of biological signals, or biomarkers, they have identified was able to distinguish healthy tissue and benign prostate disease from prostate cancer with 90 percent accuracy in initial laboratory sample tests.
A full test for use in doctors’ clinics is likely to be at least five years off, they said, but their pilot study testing around 130 samples showed encouraging results in a disease area where more accurate diagnostic tests are sorely needed.
Posted in Chemotherapy, Erectile function, Treatment news, tagged cancer research, catheter, Erectile function, erectile-dysfunction drug Viagra, HEALTH NEWS TODAY, hemotherapy drug, prostablog, prostate, prostate blog, PROSTATE CANCER, prostate cancer treatments, prostate treatment on October 5, 2010 | 2 Comments »
Posted in SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY, tagged Biopsy, biopsy samples, blood test, blood tests, Brachytherapy, cancer research, catheter, comparison of treatments, diagnostic tests, diagnostic tools, digital diagnosis, digital examination, Erectile function, External beam radiation, inquiry in prostate cancer detection, Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers., journalists in NZ, male baby boomers, mass screening, medical checkups, Ministry of Health, new drugs, news media, NZ parliamentary prostate inquiry, oncologist, Over-treatment, overseas prostate industry boom, pathologist, prostablog, prostate, prostate blog, PROSTATE CANCER, prostate cancer screening, prostate cancer treatments, prostate snatchers, prostate treatment, prostate treatment debate, prostate-specific antigen, prostatectomy, Provenge treatment, PSA, PSA test, quality of life, Radical prostatectomy, Radiotherapy, robotic surgery, Screening debate, SELECT COMMITTEE INQUIRY, Specialist advice, surgery, urologists, urology, Watchful waiting on September 26, 2010 | 1 Comment »
PROSTABLOG NZ: HERE are four key issues the NZ Parliamentary inquiry into the detection and treatment of prostate cancer ought now to be focusing on:
- Mass screening…or not: Not. The evidence in favour of mass screening of all middle-aged men for prostate cancer is not sufficiently strong in statistical terms to overcome the counter-arguments concerning needless and over-treatment and high likelihood of after effects that will blight quality of life.
But…it’s not strong enough yet. That may change as more studies are done and closer analysis of the large random trials is completed. PSA testing may also improve, or be replaced with something better, a test that defines the actual risk to the patient.
- Guidelines to GPs must be revised. Currently, GPs are forbidden by the Ministry of Health to routinely offer PSA tests and/or rectal examinations for prostate cancer unless a man asks, or mentions symptoms. Since this can be a symptomless disease (until it’s too late), that is unacceptable. It also presumes that people don’t move around, change doctors, lose track of medical records, or simply have little idea of the implications of dad dying of prostate cancer.
If the Ministry of Health wants to avoid high-risk treatment being offered unnecessarily, it needs to move the initial gatekeeping further up the food chain to the specialists.
- Specialists’ advice needs to be delivered via a more balanced and less costly method. At present, the system works well enough up to the point the pathologist finds signs of cancer in biopsy samples.
But after that, men are left to fend for themselves when it comes to seeking advice from a range of authorities. Some don’t bother, and just go with what the urologist offers. Some can’t afford the $1600 charged by a cancer specialist (oncologist), who may be the most neutral source of advice available.
In the US, the first specialists in the hierarchy, urologists, earned themselves the unenviable moniker of “prostate snatchers” because of the lucrative, medical insurance-backed business of prostate surgery.
How about panels of doctors representing the main treatment options in NZ (surgery, robotic surgery, external beam radiation, brachytherapy, watchful waiting) reviewing the case notes and offering clearly explained options to patients?
- The public needs to be kept up to date – in layman’s terms – with diagnostic and treatment developments. This is not happening at present. The Ministry and its satellite committees do not have readily available, up-to-date information on the web to help men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer become fully informed before making one of the biggest decisions of their lives.
As wealthy male baby boomers hit the danger zone, enormous amounts of US, European and Asian money are going into researching and developing new drugs, methods of surgery and radiation, diagnostic tools and a bewildering range of related methdologies.
That’s the point – it’s bewildering to the average Kiwi, who must hope his medics are keeping up to date and that the government is adequately funding new treatments.
For example, there is Provenge, a new $100,000+ drug regime that will extend life for a few months, and which is now selling big in the US. When will we see it here?
Communicating the relevance of the overseas prostate industry boom to Kiwis cannot be left solely to the news media here: that’s worse than leaving it to chance and the public relations industry.
Few, if any, journalists in NZ take an abiding interest in prostate cancer (why would they – it’s one of many diseases), and what they do write is sometimes ill-informed, incomplete, inaccurate and out of date.
Finally, the Health Select Committee would be wise to keep its files open on this inquiry. It would be a mistake to shut the doors on a tsunami of prostate cancer information that emerges daily on the web.
Developments are moving so quickly, the committee should require the Ministry of Health to report regularly about what’s happening. The inquiry report, when it finally emerges, should be an interim one that can be updated over time.
The committee is wrestling with questions that are far from settled.