(Editor’s note: Join ASPI for a webinar, “How AI will Prevent Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment of Prostate Cancer” at noon-1:30 pm Eastern, Saturday, February 24.
The Stockholm3 test is a blood-based test that measures various biomarkers and genetic markers which, when combined with some clinical data uses an algorithm to generate a risk score to “predict” prostate cancer.
Like all other prostate cancer screening tests it's meant to be used along side the highly unreliable PSA and DRE tests.
And, like all other screening tests for prostate cancer, it’s marketed as “useful” for predicting prostate cancer. However, this all-inclusive prostate cancer label is deceptive for two main reasons. First, not all prostate cancers are equal i.e. the Gleason 6 is a bogus cancer and many other prostate cancers grow extremely slowly taking 40 years or more to get to half a centimeter in diameter from the time of mutation. Second, it’s essentially the 10 to 15% of high-grade prostate cancers that are potentially lethal.
In conclusion, not only is the Stockholm3 test costly but it’s ability for detecting high-grade cancers early enough to save significant numbers of lives is unproven.
Dr. Vorstman, What do you think of Stockholm3 tedst, which doesn't aim to replace but to improve results from PSA. What are sensitivity and specificity? And what are they for PSA? Howard
The only colleague here who can defend his position is Scott Eggener MD. Because, it has been very clear for many years that the genetic pathways for cancer development and spread in the G6 are inactive. Therefore, the G6 is not a low risk or mild cancer. It is simply not a cancer.
John Ioannidis MD concluded some years ago that most published research is false. The common denominator here is that most medical studies are not based on sound scientific principles. Instead, most healthcare studies are corrupted by opinions and assumptions. And, as a consequence of poor study design, barely 11% of all medical treatments are known to be beneficial.
A simple way to bypass the many beliefs and opinions plaguing our healthcare system and to get to the truth is to throw out the challenge - where is the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting these testing and treatment recommendations?
The Stockholm3 test is a blood-based test that measures various biomarkers and genetic markers which, when combined with some clinical data uses an algorithm to generate a risk score to “predict” prostate cancer.
Like all other prostate cancer screening tests it's meant to be used along side the highly unreliable PSA and DRE tests.
And, like all other screening tests for prostate cancer, it’s marketed as “useful” for predicting prostate cancer. However, this all-inclusive prostate cancer label is deceptive for two main reasons. First, not all prostate cancers are equal i.e. the Gleason 6 is a bogus cancer and many other prostate cancers grow extremely slowly taking 40 years or more to get to half a centimeter in diameter from the time of mutation. Second, it’s essentially the 10 to 15% of high-grade prostate cancers that are potentially lethal.
In conclusion, not only is the Stockholm3 test costly but it’s ability for detecting high-grade cancers early enough to save significant numbers of lives is unproven.
correction - 1 cm not half a centimeter
Dr. Vorstman, What do you think of Stockholm3 tedst, which doesn't aim to replace but to improve results from PSA. What are sensitivity and specificity? And what are they for PSA? Howard
The only colleague here who can defend his position is Scott Eggener MD. Because, it has been very clear for many years that the genetic pathways for cancer development and spread in the G6 are inactive. Therefore, the G6 is not a low risk or mild cancer. It is simply not a cancer.
John Ioannidis MD concluded some years ago that most published research is false. The common denominator here is that most medical studies are not based on sound scientific principles. Instead, most healthcare studies are corrupted by opinions and assumptions. And, as a consequence of poor study design, barely 11% of all medical treatments are known to be beneficial.
A simple way to bypass the many beliefs and opinions plaguing our healthcare system and to get to the truth is to throw out the challenge - where is the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting these testing and treatment recommendations?