A new paper in this month’s Journal of Urology has attempted to document the potential number of years of life lost (PYLL) to prostate cancer (and other forms of urogenital cancer) between 1972 and 2006 — based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data.
According to Kamel et al., the PYLL for prostate cancer over this time period can be estimated as follows:
The authors suggest that the increase in PYLL from 1972 through the early 1990s may reflect improvements in the detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer through the widespread use of PSA screening and the wider use of radical prostatectomy for treatment of localized prostate cancer, especially after the introduction of nerve-sparing surgery. However, the exact reason for the initial rise and later fall in the PYLL is still unclear — as is the increase and subsequent fall in prostate cancer incidence over the same time period.
Like this:
Filed under: Living with Prostate Cancer, Management, Treatment Tagged: | life, lost, PYLL, years
Search for new and
ongoing trials on the
CTAG PCa web site
I don’t understand the interpretation. Surely, improvements in detection and diagnosis of prostate cancer from 1972 to early 1990s would reduce PYLL, not show an increase?
Why should nerve-sparing surgery have an effect on PYLL?
My opinion for the later fall? More prostate cancer awareness and availability/use of PSA testing and DRE examination..
I’m just reporting what the authors claim. Don’t shoot the messenger!
Re: “Why should nerve-sparing surgery have an effect on PYLL?”
When the outcome is better for the patient, more patients will tend to have the surgery. Back in 1991, my 64-old father chose radiation instead of surgery because my mother apparently stated very emphatically that “our sex life is not over”. Thankfully my father’s PSA is still undetectable, over 20 years later.
??? I would use a popular online acronym for incredulity if it wouldn’t raise undue suspicion regarding my commitment to ladylike decorum …
Really, this is meaningless drivel without demographic, policy, and clinical context. My people (social scientists) call this, “I’ll do (say, think) anything to get enough journal articles published to get tenure” writing. It’s pointless, it’s meaningless, it’s misleading, it’s distracting, and it means the folks who put it out were wasting their time on this rather than improving their skills as clinicians, thus contributing to increasing the mortality (and certainly morbidity) rates they claim to be concerned about.
Enough with this nonsense! Epidemiologists, psychologists, sociologists, and demographers don’t try to treat urogenital disease. Why in the world are a bunch of urologists trying to measure the extent of impact of urogenital disease on the population and the effects of these diseases, and the effects of treatment of these diseases, on people’s quality of life? Get back to your real jobs!