News reported from the American Urological Association conference on the Prostate Cancer Intervention versus Observation Study – or PIVOT study. Excerpt:
“What makes the PIVOT study so important is that it is the first randomized trial in the United States to look at radical prostatectomy versus “watchful waiting.”
…
…(Dr. Tim Wilt of the Minneapolis VA medical center concluded) from the data that compared to observation, radical prostatectomy produced:“reductions in all-cause and prostate cancer mortality that were not significant and less than 3% in absolute terms over 12 years.”
He added that:
“Surgery did not reduce mortality more than observation in men with low PSA or low risk from Prostate Cancer”
However, these “results suggest a benefit from surgery in men with higher PSA or higher risk of disease.”
ADDENDUM on May 18:
I was not at the AUA conference where this presentation was made. But someone who was in the room wrote me:
“I am in Washington at the AUA and you could feel the vacuum in the room when Dr. Wilt presented the data yesterday. In a room filled with urological surgeons, a pall descended.”
ADDENDUM on May 20:
Here’s the webcast of Dr. Wilt’s presentattion to the AUA conference.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
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:
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.
You might also like