Dr. Meyers video on this weeks NIH Active Surveillance conference

[Guest guest]

Dr. Meyers today released a video on the substance of this week's NIH conference on Active Sureillance that will be controversial, to say the least, in the urological community. He stated that one of the results of the rescent PIVOT trial was that for men with Gleason 3+3 biopsies, the death rate from prostate surgery was higher than for those on Active Surveillance.

The actual conference videos are not yet available.

Dr. Meyers video can be seen at:

http://askdrmyers.wordpress.com/

The Best to You and Yours!

Jon in Nevada

[Guest guest]

There has been some discussion about differences between Dr. Meyers' video comments on the Dec. 5-7 NIH consensus conference and Active Surveillance and the NIH conference draft report.

See: http://askdrmyers.wordpress.com/

The full NIH conference agenda and abstracts are available at:http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostateabstracts.html

The full video (7 hours and 23 minutes!) of the Monday Dec. 5th presentations is at:http://videocast.nih.gov/pastevents.asp?c=1

Videos for the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions should be released this week. Unfortunately, the presentations slides are not very clear in the video. I will ask NIH if the slides can be made available on line.

Having read the abstracts and watched the full 7 hours + of the Monday presentations, it is apparent that the conference "draft report" was compiled PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE based on consultants providing "systematic evidence review on the chosen topic is performed by one of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Centers". Summaries of those reviews are provided by the medical consultants during the presentations.

After watching the full presentations for the first day of the conference, it is apparent that Dr. Meyers' video comments were based on what he observed in the conference presentations, NOT the pre-conference draft report. During the three question and answer sessions in the first day, NIH panelists that will be involved in the final report draft had some pointed questions about differences between conclusions in the pre-conference draft and the presentations by speakers actually involved in the largest Active Surveillance studies.

With respect to what I saw in the first day presentations, Dr. Myers' comments were appropriate.

Dr. Meyers commented on the increasing use of MRI imaging in the Sunnybrook (Toronto) AS project. Dr. Carroll (UCSF) reinforced the comments by Dr. Klotz of Sunnybrook that both groups have found that a negative MRI report (no significant cancer found, ie no tumor greater than 0.5 cc volume) has proved to be 97% accurate in predicting no treatment failure (PSA rise) after definitive treatment.

Dr. Meyers' comments on there being no differences in outcomes on men having RPs versus observation referred to the PIVOT randomized trial, the only randomized comparative trial conducted on men diagnosed in the PSA era. Not only did the PIVOT trial find no statistical difference in outcomes for diagnosed low-risk cancers, at 12 years there were actually more cancer-specific deaths in the RP arm of that trial than the observation arm. The PIVOT trial results will be presented in the NIH videos for Tuesday Dec. 6, which have not yet been released on line. Of future import will be the results from the ongoing U.K. ProtecT trial, which has randomized 1,500 men between A.S. RP, and radiation, and is following another 1,000 men who refused randomization to make their own choice on treatment.

An interesting statistic about RP was that the SEER databases shows 1 of 200 men treated by RP surgery die within 30 days of treatment...

These NIH videos offer a significant state-of-the-science resource for those of us trying to sort out facts from opinions on the controversial issue of how to best treat early localized low-risk prostate cancers. Uncertainties about the absolute risk presented by a Gleason 3+3 tumor continue, but appear to be significantly lessening. Particularly with consideration of multiple PSA indicators, repeat biopsies, and MRI or CDU imaging.

The Best to You and Yours!Jon in Nevada

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your research and compiling of info, Jon. As usual, there is often more to be learned than the initial story. Chuck " What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. " (Chuck) Maack - Prostate Cancer Advocate/Activist Email: maack1@... PCa Help: " Observations " http://www.theprostateadvocate.com From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of ccnvw@...Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:42 PMTo: PROSTATE; ProstateCancerSupport; newdx; wwSubject: Re: Dr. Meyers video on this weeks NIH Active Surveillance conference There has been some discussion about differences between Dr. Meyers' video comments on the Dec. 5-7 NIH consensus conference and Active Surveillance and the NIH conference draft report. See: http://askdrmyers.wordpress.com/ The full NIH conference agenda and abstracts are available at:http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostateabstracts.html The full video (7 hours and 23 minutes!) of the Monday Dec. 5th presentations is at:http://videocast.nih.gov/pastevents.asp?c=1Videos for the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions should be released this week. Unfortunately, the presentations slides are not very clear in the video. I will ask NIH if the slides can be made available on line. Having read the abstracts and watched the full 7 hours + of the Monday presentations, it is apparent that the conference " draft report " was compiled PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE based on consultants providing " systematic evidence review on the chosen topic is performed by one of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Centers " . Summaries of those reviews are provided by the medical consultants during the presentations. After watching the full presentations for the first day of the conference, it is apparent that Dr. Meyers' video comments were based on what he observed in the conference presentations, NOT the pre-conference draft report. During the three question and answer sessions in the first day, NIH panelists that will be involved in the final report draft had some pointed questions about differences between conclusions in the pre-conference draft and the presentations by speakers actually involved in the largest Active Surveillance studies. With respect to what I saw in the first day presentations, Dr. Myers' comments were appropriate. Dr. Meyers commented on the increasing use of MRI imaging in the Sunnybrook (Toronto) AS project. Dr. Carroll (UCSF) reinforced the comments by Dr. Klotz of Sunnybrook that both groups have found that a negative MRI report (no significant cancer found, ie no tumor greater than 0.5 cc volume) has proved to be 97% accurate in predicting no treatment failure (PSA rise) after definitive treatment. Dr. Meyers' comments on there being no differences in outcomes on men having RPs versus observation referred to the PIVOT randomized trial, the only randomized comparative trial conducted on men diagnosed in the PSA era. Not only did the PIVOT trial find no statistical difference in outcomes for diagnosed low-risk cancers, at 12 years there were actually more cancer-specific deaths in the RP arm of that trial than the observation arm. The PIVOT trial results will be presented in the NIH videos for Tuesday Dec. 6, which have not yet been released on line. Of future import will be the results from the ongoing U.K. ProtecT trial, which has randomized 1,500 men between A.S. RP, and radiation, and is following another 1,000 men who refused randomization to make their own choice on treatment. An interesting statistic about RP was that the SEER databases shows 1 of 200 men treated by RP surgery die within 30 days of treatment... These NIH videos offer a significant state-of-the-science resource for those of us trying to sort out facts from opinions on the controversial issue of how to best treat early localized low-risk prostate cancers. Uncertainties about the absolute risk presented by a Gleason 3+3 tumor continue, but appear to be significantly lessening. Particularly with consideration of multiple PSA indicators, repeat biopsies, and MRI or CDU imaging. The Best to You and Yours!Jon in Nevada

[Guest guest]

That makes much more sense, Jon - well, apart from publishing a Draft Report

BEFORE conference??

All the best

Terry Herbert

Re: [NewDx] Dr. Meyers video on this weeks NIH Active Surveillance

conference

**********

The NewDx mailing list is intended for informational purposes only. Be aware

that much of the material on this list represents the opinions and

interpretations of other patients. Recommendations should NOT be regarded as

professional advice. Conduct your own research and discuss your options with

health care professionals involved in your care.

**********

There has been some discussion about differences between Dr. Meyers'

video comments on the Dec. 5-7 NIH consensus conference and Active

Surveillance and the NIH conference draft report.

See: http://askdrmyers.wordpress.com/

The full NIH conference agenda and abstracts are available at:

http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostateabstracts.html

The full video (7 hours and 23 minutes!) of the Monday Dec. 5th

presentations is at:

http://videocast.nih.gov/pastevents.asp?c=1

Videos for the Tuesday and Wednesday sessions should be released this week.

Unfortunately, the presentations slides are not very clear in the video. I

will ask NIH if the slides can be made available on line.

Having read the abstracts and watched the full 7 hours + of the Monday

presentations, it is apparent that the conference " draft report " was

compiled PRIOR TO THE CONFERENCE based on consultants providing " systematic

evidence review on the chosen topic is performed by one of the Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Centers " .

Summaries of those reviews are provided by the medical consultants during

the presentations.

After watching the full presentations for the first day of the conference,

it is apparent that Dr. Meyers' video comments were based on what he

observed in the conference presentations, NOT the pre-conference draft

report. During the three question and answer sessions in the first day,

NIH panelists that will be involved in the final report draft had some

pointed questions about differences between conclusions in the

pre-conference draft and the presentations by speakers actually involved in

the largest Active Surveillance studies.

With respect to what I saw in the first day presentations, Dr. Myers'

comments were appropriate.

Dr. Meyers commented on the increasing use of MRI imaging in the Sunnybrook

(Toronto) AS project. Dr. Carroll (UCSF) reinforced the comments by

Dr. Klotz of Sunnybrook that both groups have found that a negative MRI

report (no significant cancer found, ie no tumor greater than 0.5 cc volume)

has proved to be 97% accurate in predicting no treatment failure (PSA rise)

after definitive treatment.

Dr. Meyers' comments on there being no differences in outcomes on men having

RPs versus observation referred to the PIVOT randomized trial, the only

randomized comparative trial conducted on men diagnosed in the PSA era. Not

only did the PIVOT trial find no statistical difference in outcomes for

diagnosed low-risk cancers, at 12 years there were actually more

cancer-specific deaths in the RP arm of that trial than the observation arm.

The PIVOT trial results will be presented in the NIH videos for Tuesday Dec.

6, which have not yet been released on line. Of future import will be the

results from the ongoing U.K. ProtecT trial, which has randomized 1,500 men

between A.S. RP, and radiation, and is following another 1,000 men who

refused randomization to make their own choice on treatment.

An interesting statistic about RP was that the SEER databases shows 1 of 200

men treated by RP surgery die within 30 days of treatment...

These NIH videos offer a significant state-of-the-science resource for those

of us trying to sort out facts from opinions on the controversial issue of

how to best treat early localized low-risk prostate cancers. Uncertainties

about the absolute risk presented by a Gleason 3+3 tumor continue, but

appear to be significantly lessening. Particularly with consideration of

multiple PSA indicators, repeat biopsies, and MRI or CDU imaging.

The Best to You and Yours!

Jon in Nevada

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

NewDx and Prostate Pointers online discussion groups are an education and

support resource provided by Us TOO International Prostate Cancer Education

& Support Network.

For additional information, brochures, and resources, visit the Us TOO

website: http://www.ustoo.org

Find an Us TOO support group chapter near you

http://www.ustoo.org/Chapter_NearYou.asp?country1=United States

Us TOO HotSheet monthly newsletter

http://www.ustoo.org/Hot_Sheets.asp

Us TOO Chapter NEWS

http://www.ustoo.org/ChapterNews.asp

Prostate Cancer News You Can Use

http://www.ustoo.org/Prostate_Cancer_News.asp

Free prostate cancer education and awareness materials

http://www.ustoo.org/freematerials

Help continue the Us TOO Prostate Pointers support community -- Us TOO

receives no outside support to cover moderation and technical support

services http://www.ustoo.org/DonateNow

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

See the " Newly Diagnosed " page at Prostate Pointers:

http://www.prostatepointers.org/newlydx.html

______________________________________________

List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.prostatepointers.org/mailman/listinfo/newdx>,

<mailto:newdx-request@...?subject=unsubscribe>

NewDx mailing list

NewDx@...

http://www.prostatepointers.org/mailman/listinfo/newdx