Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
I endorse the views of Mulley and Barry on treating prostate
cancer.1 British urologists are deluged with data from the
United States which encourages radical prostatectomy, yet there is no
good evidence from randomised controlled trials to validate their policy.
If the editorial had been written by an American urologist the
conclusion would have been entirely different. Mulley and Barry failed
to emphasise the powerful financial motives behind much of what is
published about prostate cancer in the United States. There is an
undoubted bias in favour of papers that promote screening and radical
surgery, including papers that estimate the resulting financial reward
per urologist.2 We should note that the American urologist
invited by one journal to review "watchful waiting" in early
prostate cancer is one of the leading exponents of screening and
radical prostatectomy in the United States.3 There is
therefore no shortage of biased, uncontrolled, non-randomised
Read all Rapid Responses