So let's look at the grade 3/Gleason 6 “cancer” and sort fact from fiction.
> studies show that the biological pathways for cancer development and cancer spread in the grade 3 cell are INACTIVE - therefore, talk about the grade 3 having minor microscopic appearances of a low-risk cancer, some molecular “alterations”and potential for perineural involvement mean nothing when measured against the fact that the biological pathways for cancer development and spread are inactive
> with INACTIVE pathways for cancer development and spread the grade 3/G6 is a BOGUS cancer
> there's clear evidence that prostate cancer is often multifocal and that the embarrassingly unscientific prostate needle biopsy sampling blindly and randomly 0.1% of the prostate can lead to a semblance of cancer progression and upgrading on a subsequent biopsy
> there's NO irrefutable and reproducible evidence showing that the grade 3 cell can upgrade to grade 4 cell
> studies show that PSA testing (and screening) fails to save significant numbers of lives
> studies show that at 10 and 15 years NO treatment had similar survival rates to those who had surgery or radiation but without all the complications
> we do have lots of evidence of unnecessary treatments for the G6 in the prostate cancer arena - treatments that commonly lead to lifelong complications
> there is NO irrefutable and reproducible data that shows that active surveillance saves significant numbers of lives
> the resistance against removing the fake cancel label from the grade 3/Gleason 6 only lays bear the rotten amount of financial conflicts of interest in the business of prostate cancer
> renaming the grade 3/Gleason 6 as acinar neoplasm only continues the stoking of doubt, fear and confusion in unwitting patients - hardly surprising when healthcare is financially driven and plagued with exaggerations and misrepresentations
> there’s never been a more egregious example of licensed malpractice in the healthcare arena than in the labeling of the grade 3/G6 as a cancer - cheers
I have a meningioma that is currently being monitored. I've been a member of two meningioma FB groups for over 5 years and have never come across anyone who thinks about stopping surveillance because it's "not cancer".
Meningiomas are sort of like GG1. Many don't cause issues but sometimes they start to grow rapidly or become more aggressive. It's a gray area. I've heard neurosurgeons say there is no such thing as a benign meningioma. On the other hand, most behave nothing like cancer. They don't spread or invade adjacent tissues.
The main reasons people stopped surveillance was because the tumor was stable for 5 or 10 years. Mostly that works out, but not always.
Patients are responsible for their own health. There are many conditions that aren't cancer but still need regular monitoring.
I thought Dr. Peter Carroll's comments at last Saturday's ASPI talk made a lot of sense: There is a continuous spectrum of results, of which Gleason 3+3 is just one point, but it's not the only diagnosis leading to active surveillance, so it shouldn't be singled out with a special name.
So let's look at the grade 3/Gleason 6 “cancer” and sort fact from fiction.
> studies show that the biological pathways for cancer development and cancer spread in the grade 3 cell are INACTIVE - therefore, talk about the grade 3 having minor microscopic appearances of a low-risk cancer, some molecular “alterations”and potential for perineural involvement mean nothing when measured against the fact that the biological pathways for cancer development and spread are inactive
> with INACTIVE pathways for cancer development and spread the grade 3/G6 is a BOGUS cancer
> there's clear evidence that prostate cancer is often multifocal and that the embarrassingly unscientific prostate needle biopsy sampling blindly and randomly 0.1% of the prostate can lead to a semblance of cancer progression and upgrading on a subsequent biopsy
> there's NO irrefutable and reproducible evidence showing that the grade 3 cell can upgrade to grade 4 cell
> studies show that PSA testing (and screening) fails to save significant numbers of lives
> studies show that at 10 and 15 years NO treatment had similar survival rates to those who had surgery or radiation but without all the complications
> we do have lots of evidence of unnecessary treatments for the G6 in the prostate cancer arena - treatments that commonly lead to lifelong complications
> there is NO irrefutable and reproducible data that shows that active surveillance saves significant numbers of lives
> the resistance against removing the fake cancel label from the grade 3/Gleason 6 only lays bear the rotten amount of financial conflicts of interest in the business of prostate cancer
> renaming the grade 3/Gleason 6 as acinar neoplasm only continues the stoking of doubt, fear and confusion in unwitting patients - hardly surprising when healthcare is financially driven and plagued with exaggerations and misrepresentations
> there’s never been a more egregious example of licensed malpractice in the healthcare arena than in the labeling of the grade 3/G6 as a cancer - cheers
Thanks for sharing that. Best of luck, Shelli.
Dr. Carroll is opposed to renaming this lesion as a noncancer.
It is a big debate.
I have a meningioma that is currently being monitored. I've been a member of two meningioma FB groups for over 5 years and have never come across anyone who thinks about stopping surveillance because it's "not cancer".
Meningiomas are sort of like GG1. Many don't cause issues but sometimes they start to grow rapidly or become more aggressive. It's a gray area. I've heard neurosurgeons say there is no such thing as a benign meningioma. On the other hand, most behave nothing like cancer. They don't spread or invade adjacent tissues.
The main reasons people stopped surveillance was because the tumor was stable for 5 or 10 years. Mostly that works out, but not always.
Patients are responsible for their own health. There are many conditions that aren't cancer but still need regular monitoring.
I thought Dr. Peter Carroll's comments at last Saturday's ASPI talk made a lot of sense: There is a continuous spectrum of results, of which Gleason 3+3 is just one point, but it's not the only diagnosis leading to active surveillance, so it shouldn't be singled out with a special name.