If Rick Steves does get treatment, he should clearly get radiation and use spaceoar to avoid side effects. Removing the prostate results in a far higher change of sexual and urinary dysfunction and is more likely to release cancer into the body outside of the prostate capsule!
Yes, this fact is well known - if you have been diagnosed with one type of cancer you are at greater risk for developing another different type of cancer. Not counting the G6 of course as this is a bogus cancer because it's biological pathways for cancer development and spread are INACTIVE. Therefore, this Gleason 6 pseudo-cancer does NOT need diagnosis, monitoring or treatment.
And, your reader Matt is absolutely correct. The business of prostate cancer is about exaggerating cancer risks, exploiting false hope and exploiting false promises. Instead, the recycling of prostate cancer misinformation is a $23.2 billion industry that steers countless men only towards harm with so-called "testing" and "treatment".
Sadly, the prostate cancer community is fully aware that PSA testing FAILS to save significant numbers of lives.
And, they are also fully aware that - when the 15 year treatment survivals were compared for prostate cancer surgery, radiation and NO treatment - survival was the same for all 3 groups. That is - NO treatment is as good as the debilitating surgery for prostate cancer.
Physicians and government healthcare oversight agencies would do well to challenge their healthcare recommendations with a simple question - where is the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting this recommendation?
People getting surgery for prostate cancer are often making a big mistake. The medical establishment and people’s irrational fears both aim towards drastic and life ruining over treatment.
I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2023 beginning with a DRE. I am 74. My PSA had never been above 2.7 and I have been testing it regularly. It is still within normal range. A targeted TRUS biopsy tested 2 lesions that had shown on the MRI and my urologist performed 12 other random biopsies at the same time. One targeted lesion was Gleason 3+4 and the other one was less than 7. The other random biopsy samples were all negative. The Gleason 7 was determined to be intermediate favorable and I had a Prolaris test done that came back with an indication I was in the active surveillance range. My urologist and I agreed to go that route, which I was thankful for. I had done a lot of research, mainly through PCRI videos with Mark Scholz. I had also read some of your helpful information. This summer I had an MRI done, which was part of my active surveillance protocol. It came back with high suspicion for lymph node metastasis in the groin area and two osseous metastases on the clavicle. Naturally, I was somewhat stunned that the prostate cancer could possibly have spread this much in a year, knowing that I had chosen, properly, active surveillance the summer before. A biopsy on a groin lymph node (the most enlarged one) showed metastasis. And a PET scan showed groin lymph node metastasis and two small clavicular metastatisized lesions. However, based on the lymph node biopsy tissue sample and analysis, the indication was the metastasis was nearly impossible to have originated from the prostate cancer. So at this point the oncologist has been unable to determine a primary origin cancer causing the metastasis. She has sent the biopsy tissue in for Next Generation Sequencing test to see of that will help locate a primary cancer. I write all this to indicate that the active surveillance seemed to work in the first year of testing as was indicated in all the tests from last summer. But coincidentally and unfortunately, the MRI protocol for prostate cancer surveillance revealed a metastasis almost certainly from another undetermined primary cancer. Have you (or any of your followers) ever known of a situation like mine where the active surveillance protocol MRI showed metastasized cancer? At least the protocol MRI showed a cancer I was unaware of so I can work on that, even though it has metastasized in apparently a very short time without me knowing of any primary cancer other than prostate. I am seeking a second opinion at a large NCI cancer center. I’ll even go for a third if I think it necessary. Thanks and all best wishes on your very meaningful and helpful service.
Leslie,
Thanks for the comment.
I had the same thought as you when I read about Rick Steves' announcmeenet.
The majority of low risk men who are treated these days do get radiation.
We are missing a lot of information about Rick's situation.
We all learn from these high-profile fellow travelers.
Howard
If Rick Steves does get treatment, he should clearly get radiation and use spaceoar to avoid side effects. Removing the prostate results in a far higher change of sexual and urinary dysfunction and is more likely to release cancer into the body outside of the prostate capsule!
Good job Howard.
Yes, this fact is well known - if you have been diagnosed with one type of cancer you are at greater risk for developing another different type of cancer. Not counting the G6 of course as this is a bogus cancer because it's biological pathways for cancer development and spread are INACTIVE. Therefore, this Gleason 6 pseudo-cancer does NOT need diagnosis, monitoring or treatment.
And, your reader Matt is absolutely correct. The business of prostate cancer is about exaggerating cancer risks, exploiting false hope and exploiting false promises. Instead, the recycling of prostate cancer misinformation is a $23.2 billion industry that steers countless men only towards harm with so-called "testing" and "treatment".
Sadly, the prostate cancer community is fully aware that PSA testing FAILS to save significant numbers of lives.
And, they are also fully aware that - when the 15 year treatment survivals were compared for prostate cancer surgery, radiation and NO treatment - survival was the same for all 3 groups. That is - NO treatment is as good as the debilitating surgery for prostate cancer.
Physicians and government healthcare oversight agencies would do well to challenge their healthcare recommendations with a simple question - where is the irrefutable and reproducible data supporting this recommendation?
Thanks, Bert.
Keep on, keeping on.
Howard
Thanks, Matt.
Got a big reader response to that blog post.
The first told me my questions were "rude" and to mind my own damned business--a popular phrase these days.
Oprah to the DNC we should help our neighbors out if we see their home is on fire.
In that vein, was trying to gently suggest to Steves that he share more about his case so we can see if surgery is actually warranted.
Does Steves have the "good" kind of cancer meaning prostate vs., say, lung? Or the "good" kind, a Gleason 6 or favorable 3+4 vs. a Gleason 9?
We won't know the answers unless Steves tells us.
Steves can help others just diagnosed with PCa.
It's his choice of course.
Howard
People getting surgery for prostate cancer are often making a big mistake. The medical establishment and people’s irrational fears both aim towards drastic and life ruining over treatment.
We have heard of something similar happening to famed scientist, Dr. Francis Collins, who was on surveillance that became very aggressive overnight,. See here: https://howardwolinsky.substack.com/p/remain-calm-prominent-doctors-pca?utm_source=publication-search
It apparently is a "black swan," a rare happening.
Keep pressing for answers on the origin of the cancer.
And keep us informed of what is going on with you.
You might consider going to the high-risk group from the AnCanFoundation ancan.org.
Howard
I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in July 2023 beginning with a DRE. I am 74. My PSA had never been above 2.7 and I have been testing it regularly. It is still within normal range. A targeted TRUS biopsy tested 2 lesions that had shown on the MRI and my urologist performed 12 other random biopsies at the same time. One targeted lesion was Gleason 3+4 and the other one was less than 7. The other random biopsy samples were all negative. The Gleason 7 was determined to be intermediate favorable and I had a Prolaris test done that came back with an indication I was in the active surveillance range. My urologist and I agreed to go that route, which I was thankful for. I had done a lot of research, mainly through PCRI videos with Mark Scholz. I had also read some of your helpful information. This summer I had an MRI done, which was part of my active surveillance protocol. It came back with high suspicion for lymph node metastasis in the groin area and two osseous metastases on the clavicle. Naturally, I was somewhat stunned that the prostate cancer could possibly have spread this much in a year, knowing that I had chosen, properly, active surveillance the summer before. A biopsy on a groin lymph node (the most enlarged one) showed metastasis. And a PET scan showed groin lymph node metastasis and two small clavicular metastatisized lesions. However, based on the lymph node biopsy tissue sample and analysis, the indication was the metastasis was nearly impossible to have originated from the prostate cancer. So at this point the oncologist has been unable to determine a primary origin cancer causing the metastasis. She has sent the biopsy tissue in for Next Generation Sequencing test to see of that will help locate a primary cancer. I write all this to indicate that the active surveillance seemed to work in the first year of testing as was indicated in all the tests from last summer. But coincidentally and unfortunately, the MRI protocol for prostate cancer surveillance revealed a metastasis almost certainly from another undetermined primary cancer. Have you (or any of your followers) ever known of a situation like mine where the active surveillance protocol MRI showed metastasized cancer? At least the protocol MRI showed a cancer I was unaware of so I can work on that, even though it has metastasized in apparently a very short time without me knowing of any primary cancer other than prostate. I am seeking a second opinion at a large NCI cancer center. I’ll even go for a third if I think it necessary. Thanks and all best wishes on your very meaningful and helpful service.