Low volume, Gleason 3 + 4 = 7 disease: is active surveillance a realistic option?

It would be easy to misinterpret (or at least “over-interpret”) a recent paper from the group at Johns Hopkins about the pathological outcomes of men initially diagnosed with very low-, low-, or “favorable” intermediate-risk localized disease and treated by immediate radical prostatectomy. … READ MORE …

Vasectomy and risk for prostate cancer (for hopefully the last time!)

Your sitemaster sincerely hopes that this is indeed going to be the very last time he will ever have to deal with this topic. He’s been saying much the same thing for nearly 30 years now! … READ MORE …

“Active surveillance: protecting patients from harm”

If you want to get a current update on the management of patients on active surveillance, you need to listed to/watch this presentation by Dr. Lawrence Klotz on the UroToday web site. But you will need 45 minutes. … READ MORE …

Does Test X change what physicians actually do and say to their patients?

One of the key ways in which we can (and do) assess the “value” of new types of medical test is by the degree to which they actually change the ways physicians act on the data and make decisions and/or recommendations about patient management. … READ MORE …

Another reason why prostate cancer may be “different” in African-American men

It has long been suspected that “intrinsic biological differences” play a role in why different racial groups appear to have different risk levels for prostate cancer incidence and mortality. … READ MORE …

Cardiovascular side effects of ADT

A poster presentation given the other day at the annual meeting of the Canadian Urological Association addressed the relative cardiovascular risks of LHRH agonist and antagonist therapies. … READ MORE …

It’s not “as big a deal as you might think”

What isn’t as big a deal as we might think? According to The New York Times this morning, the US Preventive Services Task Force’s new recommendations about prostate cancer screening. … READ MORE …