BMJ 1999;318:299-300 ( 30 January )

Papers

Dilemmas in treating early prostate cancer: the evidence and a questionnaire survey of consultant urologists in the United Kingdom

Editorial by Emberton

Jenny L Donovan, senior lecturer, a Stephen J Frankel, professor, a Alex Faulkner, research associate, a Sara Selley, research associate, a David Gillatt, consultant urologist, b Freddie C Hamdy, consultant senior lecturer. c

a Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Bristol BS8 2PR, b Bristol Urological Institute, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, c University Urology Unit, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7DN

Correspondence to: Mr Hamdy F.C.Hamdy@ncl.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Evidence based medicine suggests that evidence of effectiveness should accumulate, preferably from randomised controlled trials, before treatments for any condition become widely used. The case of localised prostate cancer shows how difficult this can be in practice. The suitability of population screening for localised prostate cancer has been debated, 1 2 with particular concerns about the comparative effectiveness of the main treatments for the disease: radical prostatectomy, radical radiotherapy, and conservative management (also known as watchful waiting or surveillance). 3 4 Systematic reviews show that published evidence is limited to two seriously flawed randomised controlled trials and a range of observational studies with biases relating to patient selection, variable treatment techniques, outcome assessments, and methods of data analysis.3 These studies show that 10 year survival is good and overlaps for the three treatments, being 85-90% for radical prostatectomy, 65-90% for radical radiotherapy, and 70-90% for conservative management.3 Although some studies indicate a survival advantage of . . . [Full text of this article]
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer
Freddie C Hamdy, Jenny L Donovan, J Athene Lane, and David E Neal
BMJ 2003 326: 1456. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

What urologists say they do for men with prostate cancer
Mark Emberton
BMJ 1999 318: 276. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Related external webpages:

NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Lee, L, Pilcher, J (2008). The role of transrectal ultrasound and biopsy in the diagnosis and management of prostate cancer. Imaging 20: 122-130 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Cohen, H., Britten, N. (2003). Who decides about prostate cancer treatment? A qualitative study. Fam Pract 20: 724-729 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Hamdy, F. C, Donovan, J. L, Lane, J A., Neal, D. E (2003). Ethics of clinical trials from bayesian perspective: Randomisation to clinical trials may solve dilemma of treatment choice in prostate cancer. BMJ 326: 1456-1456 [Full text]  
  • Duckworth, M. J, Ward, R., Vaughan, E D., McLeod, D. G, de Lemos, M. L, Tonks, A. (2002). Storm over screening for prostate specific antigen. BMJ 324: 1392-1392 [Full text]  
  • Donovan, J. L, Frankel, S. J, Neal, D. E, Hamdy, F. C (2001). Screening for prostate cancer in the UK. BMJ 323: 763-764 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Who is and who should be performing radical prostatectomy
Prokar Dasgupta
bmj.com, 7 Feb 1999 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ