45% of diagnosed PCa was less than Gleason 7. Why would they consider that a good result. It’s terrible.

Same

I imagine the audience were mostly clinicians? I encourage them to look at this post from Matt Cooperberg, and my response, as a prostate cancer patient

bsky.app/profile/dr-c...

2/
You have immediately and irrevocably altered the persons psyche, and caused psychological harm. Clinicians need to remember “first do no harm”. What benefit is there in calling something that is harmless, cancer? The likely harm greatly outweighs any possible benefit.

Excellent presentation of the argument to rename grade 1.
Clinicians need to understand the simple premise, that saying “you have cancer” cannot logically be followed by “but don’t worry about it”. People will worry about it. Everything after the word “cancer” happens in a blur.

But you still tell them it’s cancer? I know hundreds of men from support groups. Very few are comfortable doing nothing about cancer.

Perhaps you’re better at selling it. But the psychological distress of a cancer diagnosis is very debilitating. I think you might be underestimating that

Because of the possibility that it’s a higher grade. Missed in biopsy. I hardly think an mri every few years could be classified as “following so damn closely “!
To me, the real question is, why was the patient biopsied at all ?

I can’t access the full text, but I think the abstract alone highlights the problem with telling someone they have cancer, and also saying, but don’t do anything about it.

That’s a very hard sell. Why are men with life expectancy less than 5 years being screened for prostate cancer at all?

Surely you wouldn’t treat someone (B) with that little cancer at all?

That’s a mouthful. And also an unnecessary euphemism. It’s castration. It’s not like the men aren’t completely aware that’s what’s happening. I’ve been dealing with it for 12 years.