Genetic Marker For Aggressive Prostate Cancer

hairygenes writes "Northwestern University researchers have found a genetic marker associated with aggressive forms of prostate cancer. Previously characterized mutations in markers at 8q24 are associated with a broader population than previously reported and with much more aggressive tumors. deCODE genetics, who originally characterized these mutations, noted a 60% increase in risk of prostate cancer, but this study finds more concrete linkage to inheritance and disease severity."

Comments

spreading the truth

[User 956]

Northwestern University researchers have found a genetic marker associated with aggressive forms of prostate cancer. Previously characterized mutations in markers at 8q24 are associated with a broader population than previously reported and with much more aggressive tumors.

You see, that's interesting, because I had always assumed it had some relation to markers at g04t53.

It will be a great advance

[Budenny]

Most of us are probably too young for it to be a personal concern, but it certainly is one for our fathers. This will be a great advance if confirmed and widely used.

The problem is the side effects of current treatments. They are fairly dire, including impotence and incontinence as very common (and probably underreported) side effects of surgery. Because most PCs are not aggressive, the main consequence of intensive screening programs is that we detect more non-aggressive cases, we then needlessly operate, and we thus needlessly produce unpleasant side effects in thousands of men who would have died with, but not of, non-aggressive PC. But, there was no way to know.

So if you could have some way of only treating those we really need to treat, it would have major quality of life implications for a lot of men.

The other question is, what the right treatment is. This is very personal and depends on risks and attitudes to it. It seems from a review of the literature by an amateur, that the treatment which offers the best risk reward ratio is Intermitten Hormone suppression. It is going to be unpleasant, but its temporary. Its not guaranteed to work - but neither is surgery, the recurrence rate is not trivial.

Biopsy is also not either totally reliable or particularly safe in itself. You can miss the tumour, if its small, if there is one. It is also possible that when biopsy is done under general anesthetic, the anesthetic itself can produce total urinary blockage in a man with benign enlargement.

All in all this is a very messy illness and its great that some real progress in diagnosis is being made.

That's dumb

[Moraelin]

That's so dumb, I don't even know where to begin.

1. The doctors and nurses are the ones who treat you. None of them would refuse to treat you because of a pre-existing condition, or because your being dumb is what got you there in the first place. I've yet to hear about anyone working in the ER turning away a stroke patient because it was some pre-existing condition, or someone with a cracked skull because, hey, they shouldn't have climbed on the house in the first place.

2. Then there are the guys who have to pay for that kind of treatment. I.e., the insurances. These aren't doctors, these are MBA and accountant types. For them it doesn't matter if you live or die, for them it matters if they make money. If it doesn't make more money than the interest at the bank/investment-fund/whatever, they're going to take their money and put it there. For them it's all down to statistics. If there's a 1% chance that you'll need a $40,000 operation in the next 40 years, they'll factor that in as an extra $10 per year on your insurance. Make that $11 or $12, because they want to make a profit too. If it's a 50% chance, they might not insure you at all.

It's completely different professions, lemming.

And more importantly, it's not like that everywhere. On most of continental europe, and IIRC Canada too, the state stepped in and created a fund for everyone. Basically everyone pays for everyone else. It's not perfect, but noone ever ends up denied medical care _because_ it's known that they'll need it.

There you go, the medical profession has no problem with that kind of setup either. They just need a salary, and someone has to pay for all the machinery and equipment. If the state enforced a more fair way of paying for it, the doctors have no problem with it. In fact, I think most are for it.

Unfortunately, that won't go that easily in the USA, where a whole cult of the psychopaths is the default culture. There's a whole caste repeating to everyone that the american dream is to shaft someone on the way to the top, and that all that matters is the Holy Dollar. As Queensryche put it, "gotta make a milion, doesn't matter who dies." Caring for your fellow man is outright communistic and undermining the very fundament of the whole socierty. (Yeah, right.)

So if anyone did try to implement a fair system where everyone has access to medical care, _especially_ if it's known that they'll need it, I'm betting on an _avalanche_ of the following two responses:

1. Noooo, it's _my_ money! I'm healthy, why should I pay for all the bums with pre-existing conditions? Papa needs a car with a wing, not to subsidize all the cripples and retards. (Until they themselves discover that they do have some genetic condition that didn't become obvious until old age. The it's "why the fuck don't I get free healthcare from everyone else... and still keep all the money I saved by not paying for everyone else???")

2. Noooo, it's a communistic plot! Wtf of an anti-american and anti-capitalist idea is that to take from everyone according to their means, and give to everyone according to their needs? The free unrestricted market solves everything by itself! If that gets implemented, we're all _doomed_. All those lazy bums will stop working and live off medicare! People will stop working hard for a promotion if they get their medical needs covered anyway! The whole economy will collapse! (Never mind that it didn't collapse in, say, Germany, where exactly such a system is in place.)

Can We Get F Few Things Straight Here?

[vtcodger]

Scanning through the comments already posted, I see some of the usual strengths and weaknesses of Slashdot postings. the weaknesses being mostly the Post_Fast_Or_No_One_Will_Read_It syndrome.

• This article is about AGRESSIVE prostate cancer which is relatively rare.

• Ordinary prostate cancer is very common and often proceeds so slowly that it is often left untreated in older patients. It is often said that men die WITH prostate cancer, not OF prostate cancer. True of the general population. Not true of those with the agressive form.

• There is a perfectly OK and inexpensive blood test for prostate cancer that is generally covered by insurance. It's biggest deficiency is a large number of false positives.

• There are three treatments for prostate cancer -- Surgery which can cause impotence and other nasty problems. Chemical therapy which is tough on the body. (X)Radiation which leads to some temporary discomfort but is not otherwise even especially unpleasant.

• Hormone (Testosterone) supression is also used as a therapy, generally in conjunction with chemotherapy and radiation. The idea is that the therapy weakens the cancer cells and the lack of Testosterone finishes them off.

• The principle utility of this discovery -- if it leads to a test -- is that it will help in screening patients who need immediate treatment for their prostate cancer from those where it is reasonable to wait and see how fast the cancer progresses. That's important because a large number of elderly men have prostate cancer (50% is a common estimate) and there aren't close to enough resources to treat them all. Nor, probably, is there any need to do so.