From Wednesday's late Wall Street Journal:
"In a bid to improve treatment for men with high-risk prostate cancer, some researchers want to take a page from the playbook for breast cancer.
Medical scientists are working to develop strategies for treating prostate tumors that are tailored to individual patients, as is currently done for many women with breast cancer. Fresh advances in the understanding of prostate cancer suggest that some men with a high-risk form of the disease might benefit from more aggressive treatment.
Other men may benefit from less treatment. For instance, radiation plus hormone therapy, also called androgen-deprivation therapy, is a common strategy to kill prostate tumors. But a recent study from researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center suggests that analyzing a tumor's DNA may identify patients who would do just as well with radiation alone. If borne out in further research, some men may be able to skip hormone therapy, avoiding side effects that include loss of libido and heart disease.
The developments come amid changes in the way many types of cancer are identified and treated. The changes are being driven in part by the use of genomic information that defines tumors by their underlying biology and provides clues about drivers of the disease not available by conventional exams."
Medical scientists are working to develop strategies for treating prostate tumors that are tailored to individual patients, as is currently done for many women with breast cancer. Fresh advances in the understanding of prostate cancer suggest that some men with a high-risk form of the disease might benefit from more aggressive treatment.
Other men may benefit from less treatment. For instance, radiation plus hormone therapy, also called androgen-deprivation therapy, is a common strategy to kill prostate tumors. But a recent study from researchers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center suggests that analyzing a tumor's DNA may identify patients who would do just as well with radiation alone. If borne out in further research, some men may be able to skip hormone therapy, avoiding side effects that include loss of libido and heart disease.
The developments come amid changes in the way many types of cancer are identified and treated. The changes are being driven in part by the use of genomic information that defines tumors by their underlying biology and provides clues about drivers of the disease not available by conventional exams."
As a cancer survivor, I can tell you any test that is used in early detection, any test, is so much better than no test. A woman who regularly use a self-check exam to test for lumps in her breast has a much better chance of survival than one who is afraid to face that possibility. A man who visits his urologist at least once a year for a digital exam to detect the possibility of prostate cancer has a better chance of survival than a man who doesn't. 30 seconds of discomfort is worth a year of piece of mind.
As we move through the test process, ie, mammograms, PSA tests etc, the chance for discovery increases, and early detection is improved. This means the survival rate improves, as well.
From my own perspective, I had other problems which delayed my own advice. I put off the colonoscopy, using my kidney stone issue as an excuse. As a result, when I finally got around to the colonoscopy after my kidney was removed, I discovered I had Stage 3 colon cancer. So, of course, the surgery and the chemo came next. And I lost my spleen because I never recovered from the polluted blood that resulted.
Lesson learned, right? Now, I go for my blood tests, exams and pet scans. As I write this, I am an almost two year year survivor.
As far as I am concerned, I tell all my friends and family to go for those check ups, get your blood tested, do those uncomfortable exams. They are there to help all of us. With all the technology that has evolved since the Stone Age, uhh, the 1960s, none of us has a legitimate excuse to avoid the obvious.
Yes, there are very sophisticated tests like genome testing which detects the preponderance of cancer. But if nothing else, relying on the basics from years ago still works.
I have spoken with several friends on Facebook and followers on Twitter who have or had cancer. Each of them, as I have, said if only they/we did what we knew we should have.
But I have no regrets. Had I done the colonoscopy six months earlier, before I lost my kidney, the cancer may not have been detected. I would have been given a "clean bill of health" and would not have been back for five years, maybe less if I finally felt the pain. But it could have been too late. I will never know.
My advice is to get tested, get those well visits in, at least once a year. Then, until the next year, when you go again for the tests, you will have that important piece of mind. It is well worth any expense of time or money.
Your family and friends are depending on you.
No comments:
Post a Comment