The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
overall about 30 to 35% of men in the first five years of entering survey once will go on to subsequently have definitive treatment okay so about 12.5% of guys it's because there's a change in the grade it becomes more aggressive looking and the other guys a variety of factors they have increasing bulkiness of their tumor they may develop concominant urinary symptoms and they want it all addressed at one time etc etc
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.
it's around 2 3% risk annually and that that that holds for 10 years as well
The chances that you would have a more aggressive cancer develop in the first 5 years of surveillance is 12.5%