March 29, 2010

Chicago Tribune profiles active surveillance for prostate cancer

Posted By

Comments

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Cheryl Scott-Sprouse

March 31, 2010 at 8:26 am

Just wanted to correct one misconception that “watchful waiting” & “active surveillance” are the same. They are not! My husband is on “active surveillance” for the “simple” reason that whether one goes through the radical treatments or they choose to be on “active surveillance,” the difference in life expectancy is only 0.5% longer. And the quality of life is the big difference. My husband has his PSA taken twice a month for the simple reason of providing as much information to the physician as possible so they can more accurately track his progression. They monitor his cholesterol and blood pressure as well as the condition of his kidneys & liver because of the meds he has to take. He has also changed his diet to exclude red meats since they are harder to digest, all “white” products, as little sugar intake as possible, no fried foods, no processed foods, nutritional supplementation with care as there are even whole food supplements that will “feed” the cancer, etc.
With watchful waiting, there doesn’t seem to be the intense tracking that he has with the “active surveillance.”
He also walks three miles a day, weather permitting, alleviates as much BS stress as he can, and he tries to enjoy each day to the fullest. Not always easy when he has to jump through so many hoops in order to receive care from “qualified & knowledgeable” physicians. Fortunately, he has one of the best that Chapel Hill, NC has to offer.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Scott-Sprouse

COMMENTS button We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.

But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.

You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.

This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.

We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.

There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”

The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:

“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”

We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.

And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.

The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.