This month’s issue of Urologic Oncology contains a series of six articles that may be of particular interest to prostate cancer support group leaders and other prostate cancer educators.
Rather than try to summarize these papers, we have provided the authors and titles of each of the six papers in the list below, with links to the on line information in each article. The goal of the six papers was to try to give some insight into issues affecting the choices between the differing types of conservative management and active treatment that are available today to the newly diagnosed patient with localized prostate cancer. As experienced readers will be well aware. Making such choices is not easy to do … and even getting unbiased information about those choices can also be hard.
So, with that disclaimer, here is the list of papers:
- Lavery H, Cooperberg MR. Clinically localized prostate cancer in 2017: a review of comparative effectiveness
- Leapman MS, Carroll PR. What is the best way not to treat prostate cancer?
- Tyson MD, et al. The comparative oncologic effectiveness of available management strategies for clinically localized prostate cancer
- Moon DH, et al. What is the best way to radiate the prostate in 2016?
- Shirk JD, Saigal CS. From QOL to QALYs: comparing nononcologic outcomes in prostate cancer survivors across treatments
- Muralidhar V, Nguyen PL. Maximizing resources in the local treatment of prostate cancer: a summary of cost-effectiveness studies
Unfortunately only the introductory article by Lavery and Cooperberg is available on line as a full text article, but it may be able to get hold of copies of the other articles from a friendly urologist or urologic oncologist.
Filed under: Diagnosis, Management, Risk, Treatment | Tagged: choice, comparative, current, effectiveness, localized, Treatment |
THE "NEW" PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK 
Leave a Reply