Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 62 posts

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#21

Post by abalone »

relium wrote: post #15
not_the_fda wrote: post #7

You die with prostate cancer, not from it. It has a 95% survival rate.

About 40 years ago my father, an oncologist, told me there were two common types of prostate cancer, the fast growing type that kills you and the slow growing type that doesn't. We've learned a lot about it since then, but that description is still essentially true. It causes 30,000 deaths a year in the US, which is not insignificant - in comparison breast cancer kills 40,000.

Yes, the absolute number of deaths is significant. There is a debate within the medical community over whether the slower growing type should be relabeled as not-cancer / pre-cancer, etc., as surveillance is the more typical treatment plan these days. This in turn will increase the death rate percentage of the remaining (fast growing) cases.

Also worth mentioning that it's not just about surviving it, there's also quality of life. The earlier you catch it the better the outcome.

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#22

Post by abalone »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #14
not_the_fda wrote: post #7

You die with prostate cancer, not from it. It has a 95% survival rate.

Let's say you undergo medical procedures to cure it, (chemo, surgery, etc.) and end up dying from a complication from it. Does that still count as a prostate cancer death (the 5%)?

This is so very rare that I doubt it would move that statistic.

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#23

Post by tjpnz »

What steps can one take to increase their chances of it being detected early (and by that I mean all cancers). I live in a country which screens people in their 30s for lung, bowel and stomach cancer but the tests aren't infallible. Same goes for the tumor markers tests you can buy at the clinic which will sometimes lead to unnecessary interventions.

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#24

Post by ein0p »

relium wrote: post #15
not_the_fda wrote: post #7

You die with prostate cancer, not from it. It has a 95% survival rate.

About 40 years ago my father, an oncologist, told me there were two common types of prostate cancer, the fast growing type that kills you and the slow growing type that doesn't. We've learned a lot about it since then, but that description is still essentially true. It causes 30,000 deaths a year in the US, which is not insignificant - in comparison breast cancer kills 40,000.

Plus a large percentage of men (like 1 in 8 in the US) eventually get it, it’s just that men often keel over before that happens. If men live longer, percentage will naturally increase

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#25

Post by jghn »

stvltvs wrote: post #20
abalone wrote: post #19

Prostate cancer survivor here, AMA. Tips: * I recommend everyone with a prostate get their PSA tested by age 45, or earlier if it runs in the family. It's a simple blood test but sometimes you have to ask for it. * Early detection is key. A biopsy can assess how aggressive it is (the Gleason score). They can even genetically profile the tumor to further gauge risk (the Decipher score). * Most cases are slow growing a…

While you're at it, schedule a colonoscopy too. Early detection saves lives.

At a population scale that's not as true as one would think.

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#27

Post by breadwinner »

abalone wrote: post #19

Prostate cancer survivor here, AMA. Tips: * I recommend everyone with a prostate get their PSA tested by age 45, or earlier if it runs in the family. It's a simple blood test but sometimes you have to ask for it. * Early detection is key. A biopsy can assess how aggressive it is (the Gleason score). They can even genetically profile the tumor to further gauge risk (the Decipher score). * Most cases are slow growing a…

Is that the lab test? Isn't false positives and false negatives high with PSA?

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#28

Post by binkHN »

tjpnz wrote: post #23

What steps can one take to increase their chances of it being detected early (and by that I mean all cancers). I live in a country which screens people in their 30s for lung, bowel and stomach cancer but the tests aren't infallible. Same goes for the tumor markers tests you can buy at the clinic which will sometimes lead to unnecessary interventions.

The most cost-effective tool that we have today is the simple PSA blood test. However, I'd argue this is unnecessary at your age.

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#29

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

breadwinner wrote: post #27
abalone wrote: post #19

Prostate cancer survivor here, AMA. Tips: * I recommend everyone with a prostate get their PSA tested by age 45, or earlier if it runs in the family. It's a simple blood test but sometimes you have to ask for it. * Early detection is key. A biopsy can assess how aggressive it is (the Gleason score). They can even genetically profile the tumor to further gauge risk (the Decipher score). * Most cases are slow growing a…

Is that the lab test? Isn't false positives and false negatives high with PSA?

This article from 2018 argues against widespread PSA testing as a screening tool: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/new-study-once-again-cas...

Re: Prostate cancer cases worldwide likely to double by 2040, analysis finds

#30

Post by thfuran »

jghn wrote: post #25
stvltvs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you're at it, schedule a colonoscopy too. Early detection saves lives.

At a population scale that's not as true as one would think.

Is imaging-based screening better? It at least removes most potential complications.
Post reply on HN