Talk:Prostate cancer staging
| WikiProject Medicine | (Rated Start-class, High-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
A fact from Prostate cancer staging appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 December 2005. The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know
|
 |
If anyone has any better suggestion for the name of this page, please suggest it. Even if we don't end up moving it, it can redirect here. I'll try to think of good variants to redirect now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And isn't it a copyright violation to just copy the descriptions from the AJCC recs? I'm unsure how this works; I'll reword the descriptions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I've got an idea that the outline might be more immediately clear if the initials were included in the header level, so I've put that in, but if you don't like it, feel free to revert. --Arcadian 03:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion. How about adding a section on prognosis? I realize that prognosis in prostate ca is not straight-forward, but even basics would be helpful. Thanks for your work so far.
Probably not; a prognosis is generally felt to be dangerous by men who have prostate cancer. So much can depend on their attitude, their fitness and their life-style, none of which the medic can really factor in. To be given a prognosis can sound like a sentence of death, and may quash the hope that keeps people going. Better a bromide such as "...we'll keep you going for a long time yet..."
[Note that, for T3/T4 staging, most will survive for many many years, depending on their attitude, fitness etc. Few will actually die within the year, and that may result from other issues with their health, which again is hard for the medic to factor in. For T1/T2, assuming no spread, radical treatment can "cure" (i.e. put into remission) the cancer for the rest of their lives. It can reappear, though.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.79.166 (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Medic? It's really work for a doctor to factor in... and this is the best reason to leave it out. Unless... there is some real solid research. This is a page about information, bot about second guessing intentions and playing psychologist. Gingermint (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is exactly the use of 'bromides' suggested above that demands better information on prognoses and outcomes. Even allowing the dated nature of statistical evidence, the survivability of different staged tumours must be relevent to every sufferer and physician alike. What is the point of having Wikipedia deal with medical issues at all, if science is going to obscure the truth and return us to days when medecine was akin to a 'black art' and only the MD knows best! 86.155.68.178 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Peter Elliott
[edit] outdated
All this staging is outdated. Nobody uses 6th ed AJCC anymore. (And, all staging systems are prognostic.) Would be good to add a graphic of national survival curves by stage, as in the AJCC manual. Time to update to AJCC 7th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarbrtj (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
