Were it the case each of us a wide reader, names you note here of the "Who's Who"-plus others- found in Jack McCallum's, "The Prostate Monologues" would appear familiar, your message redundant. But why spend the time at all when blessed with "The Active Surveillor!" The power of your innate ability, result of treatment by BIGGEST names in industry 12 years ago, is not solely in research near impossible for typical subscriber to obtain on his/her own; no, equally important is repetitive highlighting through which each of us-with time-learn, bringing ALL of us along for the ride. While 6 to 60% and counting in 10 years is remarkable, some support groups aligned to medical center's remain closed-lip to ongoing open discussion; USTOO groups guilty also. You've been 'round long time, Howard, seen it all. One has to wonder whether impact of your newsletter shared before such groups likely greater than the millions spent by national organizations were we to simply open our mouth.
Catalona says, "When surveilling patients, it really must be acknowledged that we are rolling the dice to some extent because we know from experience that 30% to 50% of them harbor worse cancer than we thought based mostly on sampling error in their biopsies." If the miR Sentinel test is as accurate miR says it is (over 90%) we now know who harbors cancer and what grade. The gamble advances to what to do with intermediate and advanced positives. What would Vorstman say to do with them?
Dr. V. Thanks for responding to our reader, Charles. So much with this cancer and its treatment is confusing and contradictory. HW
Were it the case each of us a wide reader, names you note here of the "Who's Who"-plus others- found in Jack McCallum's, "The Prostate Monologues" would appear familiar, your message redundant. But why spend the time at all when blessed with "The Active Surveillor!" The power of your innate ability, result of treatment by BIGGEST names in industry 12 years ago, is not solely in research near impossible for typical subscriber to obtain on his/her own; no, equally important is repetitive highlighting through which each of us-with time-learn, bringing ALL of us along for the ride. While 6 to 60% and counting in 10 years is remarkable, some support groups aligned to medical center's remain closed-lip to ongoing open discussion; USTOO groups guilty also. You've been 'round long time, Howard, seen it all. One has to wonder whether impact of your newsletter shared before such groups likely greater than the millions spent by national organizations were we to simply open our mouth.
Catalona says, "When surveilling patients, it really must be acknowledged that we are rolling the dice to some extent because we know from experience that 30% to 50% of them harbor worse cancer than we thought based mostly on sampling error in their biopsies." If the miR Sentinel test is as accurate miR says it is (over 90%) we now know who harbors cancer and what grade. The gamble advances to what to do with intermediate and advanced positives. What would Vorstman say to do with them?