Peter Attia· MD
and all kinds of therapy to treat it carry more morbidity than just leaving it in place and just monitoring it
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
and all kinds of therapy to treat it carry more morbidity than just leaving it in place and just monitoring it
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
so if you did five samples of an MRI suspicious RADS 4 lesion and all five samples came out gleon six we would just call that one area of visible cancer in those situations we we generally would say you are somebody who is a candidate who can have their prostate cancer followed because at this time your tumor does not have the lethal potential to spread to your lymph nodes or other parts of your body
they do very well they're like the probability that they would die from prostate cancer is very very low but they could have a local recurrence for example and that could result in subsequent problems a need for additional secondary therapies
on average we know that a glein six prostate cancer that is of low volume can be safely monitored
Whole-body MRI screening in healthy adults produces more incidentaloma harm than cancer-mortality benefit.
Starting colonoscopy screening at 45 (vs 50) prevents enough early-onset cancers to justify the population cost.
Multi-cancer liquid-biopsy tests like Galleri detect early cancers at a stage that meaningfully improves survival.