Be warned though,this is a shares BB but saying that it is mostly me contributing…forget about the Mediwatch (MDW)aspect and just read the articles I have posted.

To answer your question about DRE,I don’t think it includes this but with the tech.they may be able to tabulate the results together…if that makes sense?

The PSA test if i’m right,is to back up the DRE as well as give an ‘indication’of PSA before and after prostate cancer.

I’m nearly 39 now so will be having a test soon..just to get a baseline.Have done quite a bit of research into PSA testing for/against.

As I said before I have a financial interest in Mediwatch but obviously a concern nearer to home.

The website for mediwatch is:

http://www.mediwatch.com/

Look under products

One Stop Prostate Assessment System &
Near Patient Tests
Use the male/female signs for more info.

Must add i’m not trying to get you to buy shares in the company,just interested in any comments!
Cheers

I can certainly understand why you are personally concerned about testing, given your dad’s experience. How old are you?

Does the ‘one stop’ test include a DRE (Digital Rectal Examination)?

Now to the big “P” in many men’s psyche at the moment and: To screen or not to screen?

I’ve recent personal involvement with a family member who has been treated for Prostate Cancer. Some of this information may be valuable for those of you interested.

First, the NZ Cancer Foundation have a free-call line you can ring and ask any questions you wish to about any form of cancer. The calls are fielded by experienced oncology nurses. If required, expert opinion is sought.

Second, if a family member has Prostate Cancer, male children and siblings are twice as likely to contract the cancer. “Testing” is recommended for men over 45 years of age in this category.

Third, the “entrenched” medical community will tell you there is no benefit in screening when the cancer is asymptomatic - that many more men die “with” rather than “because of” Prostate Cancer.

Fourth, there is a blood test that measures PSA - Prostate Specific Antigen (?I think this is right). This is a chemical produced by the prostate gland that causes the ejaculate to “glob” (urologist’s term), but, within 20 minutes, allows the semen to become fluid again.

The blood test measures the level of PSA in the blood. This level varies in most healthy males from day-to-day by (according to the urologist) up to 30%. It can be affected by how often (or not) a man has sex, whether or not he has exercised, his diet and the list goes on. However, if early screening is undertaken, a “normal” range can be established.

The medical profession know that, when Prostate Cancer is present, more PSA passes through the wall of the prostate into the blood. This means the PSA reading increases over time as the cancer grows.

A reading of 6 is high, but acceptable. At this level, needle biopsy of the prostate is likely to be recommended. While not a “nice” thing to have, the biggest downside is that it is not guaranteed to discover any cancerous cells.

Our family experience was over a period of some 7 years since the PSA reading hit 6. Needle biopsy failed to determine a positive cancer result.

The PSA reading gradually rose to over 25, which the urologist just could not understand when the biopsy came back negative.

The outcome of this is that earlier in 2004, a twice-a-year biopsy came back positive. After considering the options: surgery versus radio-therapy, the latter was chosen after a family meeting.

Elsewhere on MENZ there has been an article about research into the limiting of testosterone in the treatment of Prostate Cancer by radio-therapy. This involves a “pill” that is lodged “subcutaneously” (under the skin) of the stomach area. The “pill” causes testosterone production to drop almost to nothing and the treatment is for at least 4 months.

The positive effect of this is that the cancer shrinks and is weakened. This means the radio-therapy is much more effective and can be more localised (less radiation trauma to adjoining tissue).

The downside is that testosterone is what makes us Men; it is what provides a large part of our energy and drive; it provides us with a level of emotional strength.

Radio-therapy was an 18 week course finishing late in 2004. Towards the end of this time, all of us helped out with transport because the drain on our patient was terrible to watch. Speak with the NZ Cancer Foundation if you wish to get some idea of the side-effects of radio-therapy.

I will also express my heartfelt gratitude to all the ladies who nurse at the Auckland Hospital Radio-Therapy unit. Their demeanour was always wonderful as they grew to know our patient by name (as you can imagine) and take a genuine interest in how he was managing the day-to-day living while under radio-therapy. Medals are long overdue for these nurses.

The final outcome has, in general, been very positive for our patient. The effects of the therapy have passed. His PSA reading is now down well under 1 - all the medicals are pleased. The Family are also pleased that life will continue with a reasonable quality for him.

Given that the screening we are speaking about is a blood test just like the ones done for anaemia, diabetes, kidney function etc, why are we not screening “at risk” individuals over the age of 45 once a year in order to establish a “normal” PSA reading. Then, when a change occurs (a steady increase over time), further investigation may be done.

This form of screening would not be as costly as screening for breast cancer and might be able to provide “early warning” where a man is set to die “because of” Prostate Cancer.

In my situation, I am twice as likely to develop the cancer. I would like to think that I can have an annual blood test after my 45th birthday to provide the early warning. With the current femi-nazi brigade in charge, I will not be holding my breath….that shade of blue doesn’t suit me.

Remember, the steady increase in a PSA reading is a “reasonable indication” there is Prostate Cancer present to some level. A needle biopsy is currently the only current test that can discover cancerous cells, but its reliability is impaired because the cell sample is, generally, very small relative to the size of the gland.

The impotence and incontinence are risks of both surgery and radio-therapy - not of the blood test nor the biopsy.

Go in peace! Stay healthy and happy!

But I still know from depressing experience that despite my years of independantly lobbying MPs including Jenny Shipley and Helen Clarke for prostate and testicular cancer research dollars neither could give a shit.
Despite my appeals for compassion, equity and justice for men pointing out to them both that they were pumping millions of taxpayers dollars annually into breast and cervical screening, they offered not one jot of concern or sympathy in thier responses.
All I got in both instances was a measly ‘your concerns are noted’ type reply. Cold, flat rejection.
I was choked at thier callous disregard for men’s health, and naive to think they’d really care and listen to reason.

As an aside, I notice John Tamihere’s gone deafeningly quiet on advocating for men’s health (for the time being anyway). Looks like he got the message not to mess with Clarke’s agenda by stirring up the male vote or he’ll get dealt to severely.
The sooner Helen and her gaygirl entourage are gone the sooner I’ll repatriate.
And have a bloody good party up to celebrate doing so!

“mass screening wouldn’t necessarily lead to treatment”

[edit] at least, not right away. That’s where the stress comes in. Doctor: “I’m sorry Stephen, but you have an elevated PSA level of 5, we better keep an eye on things.” [/edit]

Study: Prostate Screening Saves Lives seems like a pretty balanced article, thank you.

Note this:

Goel tells WebMD. “In young men with no risk factors, PSA testing may not be indicated, even at this level of benefit. “

The real point I wanted to make to Moose is that there is genuine scientifically-based debate going on behind this issue, rather than it being another feminist plot to disadvantage men.

However the criteria for mass population screening (which would include a large number of men with little risk of developing this cancer), demands that the risks be weighed against the benefits. The balance as applied to any one individual man may be quite different from what applies to mankind in general.

The PSA test you refer to (which should always be accompanied by the ‘finger test’) has been known in the past to have a high rate of false positives, although I understand accuracy is increasing. In addition, new treatments are less likely to produce unwanted side effects.

There is still however, a valid concern that mass screening and treatment could result in creating significant numbers of impotent and/or incontinent men who had nothing wrong with them in the first place.