Medical Phys-Org Medical Xpress prostate cancer 'Golden Era

  • Thread starter Thread starter phys-hack
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cancer Medical
AI Thread Summary
The article discusses the recent advancements in prostate cancer treatment, highlighting a new drug that extends patient survival by 1 to 1.5 years. Critics argue that six additional months of life does not constitute a "Golden Age" in treatment, emphasizing the need for responsible evaluation of medical news releases. There is a call for more rigorous scrutiny of the sources and claims made in such reports, rather than accepting them at face value. While the advancements are not cures, they are seen as significant improvements in managing the disease and enhancing quality of life. Overall, the conversation underscores the importance of critical assessment in the dissemination of medical information.
phys-hack
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Phys-Org Medical Xpress prostate cancer 'Golden Era"

The article "Golden age of prostate cancer treatment hailed as fourth drug in two years extends life" has attracted my attention, just a few weeks following my surgery for prostate cancer. Because the study tracks cancer that has metastasized from prostate cancer to more lethal forms of remotely located prostate cancer, I am interested in the study.

This "Golden Age" that has been "hailed" is the report of lengthening the survival of patients from 1 to 1.5 years. Six months of added life (more accurately quoted as 'survival', not as any quality of life) is 'hailed'?. This is a Golden Age?

Six months added life is Physorg's definition of a 'Golden Age'?

Of course, it is not.

There needs to be some mechanism in place that responsibly evaluates PR news releases, instead of simple parroting their content, at the breathless level of PR agents, as opposed to direct interviews of the scientists responsible for the submission to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Since PhysOrg makes itself available to unsophisticated readers, it has an essential responsibility to evaluate the source(s) of information reported, and an honest (peer-reviewed) evaluation of the contents that PhysOrg reports.

When self-interest reports are implicitly rubber-stamped as 'facts', we are all poorer for experience.
 
Biology news on Phys.org


Additional info at Medscape http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/769167 I deal largely in radiation therapy, but a few things to note. Local, regional, and distant control, as well as pain relief are significant objectives for any patients. While this isn't a cure, slowing the process and improving the quality of life are still very positive advances. The US FDA has given a "Priority Review designation" to this drug, and the Phase III trials are not indicators of a rubber stamp. Additionally, being able to demonstrate the effectiveness sufficiently to be able to stop the trial and get the Priority Review designation for the drug isn't done lightly. MSKCC and the other institutions involved in the trials are very creditable.
 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-deadliest-spider-in-the-world-ends-lives-in-hours-but-its-venom-may-inspire-medical-miracles-48107 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versutoxin#Mechanism_behind_Neurotoxic_Properties https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0028390817301557 (subscription or purchase requred) he structure of versutoxin (δ-atracotoxin-Hv1) provides insights into the binding of site 3 neurotoxins to the voltage-gated sodium channel...
Popular article referring to the BA.2 variant: Popular article: (many words, little data) https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/17/health/ba-2-covid-severity/index.html Preprint article referring to the BA.2 variant: Preprint article: (At 52 pages, too many words!) https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.14.480335v1.full.pdf [edited 1hr. after posting: Added preprint Abstract] Cheers, Tom
Back
Top