Study: Little evidence radiation is superior to watchful waiting for "early prostate cancer"

If you're in the throes of making a treatment decision on prostate cancer, the choices can seem bewildering.  Radiation (and all the different flavors), surgery (robotic and open), and watchful waiting -- what to do?  You don't want to risk your life, on the other hand, if you don't need an aggressive treatment, why risk the collateral damage, i.e. incontinence and ED? I'm posting the following story by HealthDay, because it's worthwhile reading if you're weighing those risks.  The article Jury Still Out on Radiation for Early Prostate Cancer cites a new Tufts University study funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that says there's little evidence radiation is more likely to save your life than watchful waiting, if you have early prostate cancer.  I'm assuming "early prostate cancer" means the low-grade (Gleason 6 and under), nonlethal, slow-growing variety, although it's not clear. The Tufts study is yet another reminder that treatment for low-grade prostate cancer still has the medical experts baffled.  Best advice: Do your homework, consider all your options, talk to multiple physicians, and don't rush into a decision.

In another article this week from Reuters Health, Prostate Cancer: Is it safe to skip radiation?, a review of many recent studies reveals there is no clear picture of what works best for the majority of men when comparing different radiation treatments.  Interestingly, last year a research group in the article found that among 466 patients who chose active surveillance rather than immediate treatment, those with tumors at intermediate risk for progression fared as well as men with low-risk prostate cancer over four years.  Granted, most of us are looking for no cancer beyond four years, but it's an interesting comparison and something to keep in mind ... especially if you have a Gleason of 6 or under.