Gerry Mulligan's comprehensive article on detecting prostate cancer touched on two major problems. The first is the reluctance of men to bother the doctor. A Scandinavian study implied it could be genetic. It showed men who produced daughters rather than sons appeared to be much more liable to prostate cancer. It transpired that men who produced daughters rather than sons were much more liable to be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The actual frequency of the disease was the same between the 2 groups, it was just that the second group hadn't checked. The difference was due to daughters prodding their dads to the surgery more than sons did. The second problem is that medical opinion is increasingly suggesting that just like breast cancer in women, prostate cancer in men is being over diagnosed in plain English miss diagnosed. His experience with his urologist was typical - because he had a PSA of over 4 a biopsy was recommended. If that had proved positive he would have been directed to immediate treatment typically surgery or radiation. He highlights that even a well performed biopsy can miss the cancer (15%). I should also point out that 12% of positive biopsies are plain wrong. With radical prostatectomy the removed gland can be completely examined and 1 in 8 is found to have no trace of cancer.
Also in Holiday
- Deal with Spain over British driving licences is "close", British ambassador gives update
- British driving licence deal could be "tied to agreement over Gibraltar"
- Hundreds gather in Palma to denounce "tourism intensification"
- Heavy rains and big drop in temperatures forecast for Thursday
- Birthday celebrations for Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones