Source: Joe Biden diagnosed with ‘aggressive form’ of prostate cancer, his office says | Joe Biden | The Guardian Joe Biden, the former US president, has been diagnosed with an “aggressive form” of prostate cancer that has spread to his bones, his personal office announced on Sunday. The 82-year-old was seen last week by doctors after urinary symptoms and a prostate nodule were found. Biden and his family are considering options for treatment. “While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,” his office said. “The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.” Prostate cancers are given a score called a Gleason score that measures, on a scale of one to 10, how the cancerous cells look compared with normal cells. Biden’s office said his score was nine, suggesting his cancer is among the most aggressive. . . . Bob Wilson
Interesting...... I would have thought that an annual PSA screening would have caught that 'left' of symptoms. But yeah....I guess "good luck Joe!" is certainly appropriate.
Hmmmmm........ One of the oldest debates in the military is whether it's better to be lucky than it is to be good - going all the way back at least to Napoleon Bonaparte. “The only thing sure about luck is that it will change....” Joe is certainly due for some GOOD luck, but the cancer "discovery" announcement seems VERY curiously timed - given the recent publication of the Hur transcript and the Tapper/Thompson book.
One should avoid becoming a self appointed oncologist. Medicine is not mathematics but more statistical. Bob Wilson
Once again we're compelled by our 'betters' to suspend our belief in real science and data to prop up the latest cleanup in the Donkey's stalls..... This time it would appear that the victims will be the OAP, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, and Walter Reed. Like the former President I have a Cancer history in my family, including prostate cancer. Unlike Joe, I appear to have competent medical care - including an annual PSA since my late 40's. It's not 'statistics.' It's common sense.
"The test has a high proportion of false positives, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not recommend it for men 70 and older since they are more likely to die of other medical conditions than prostate cancer." -https://http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/joe-biden-psa-screening-2014-prostate-cancer-rcna208120 Sensible for most, but I'd think you'd want more data for the President. It would just be one test added to the rest already being done with a blood sample.
One good thing about all of this is that the 15 or so men over 50 who do not know what a PSA test will get a theory-to-practice on what this test is, and why you should view any advice to exclude it on an already crowded blood panel should be viewed with the deepest of suspicion. "Trust the Experts!"
My most-recent-doc save one was including PSA annually in my checkup panels without even really asking me about it. My most-recent-doc (insurance network shakeup) looked at that and pointedly asked me if I wanted to continue that, citing the prevalence of false positives and possible drawbacks of further action that could be taken based on a false positive. He didn't strongly advocate one way or the other (and I have until next year's checkup to think about it), but it did remind me that there does seem to be live discussion about the pros and cons still.
General rule is monitor and see if the PSA rises over time. At some point, you get a needle probe and seek a Gleason score. I had regular monitoring and then when a rise was detected, got my Gleason and then elected Radiation. PSA has been statistical zero since then. Last tested at 80 years old. At 82, they figure something else will get me first if it does reoccur. So no more tests.
unfortunately, there is controversy about the false positives and unnecessary action being taken. and then there's the problem of no action being taken. for now, it's a quandary.
Earlier test also reported as 2014. Either way that would be a long gap.Possibly there have been more, but a HIPAA in the room? False positive PSA is reduced by also measuring fPSA free PSA, hoping for high fPSA/PSA ratio. (False) positive is not so terrible for this 'oma' because it would lead to (MRI directed) needle biopsy for better definition. I think. Have we any medical professionals specializing in 'down there'?
There's no HIPPA in the room when you're a POTUS. Period. Full Stop. That should apply to EVERY POTUS since Woody Wilson. I'm old enough to remember when a lot of Americans got a jolt of MoCA with their morning coffee following calls for a 25A hearing on ANOTHER president that's been accused of cognitive impairment......EVEN by people in THIS HUMBLE forum. There's nothing wrong with a thorough investigation of a POTUS' health. HIPPA lovers and the diminishing number of people who still trust the 'experts' can empanel a small committee of board certified for-real DOCTOR-doctors to look at the actual numbers and weight in. The real scandal here isn't Joe's state of physical or cognitive health. It's the way that people who were asking LEGITIMATE questions were treated by "the experts."
"There's no HIPPA in the room when you're a POTUS." I must consider this something you wish were true. As opposed to reality. President's medical records are confidential unless she decides to release them. This has been discussed extensively in medical and medical ethics literature.
For most of my pre-adult and adult life I believed it was true that a presidential candidate's tax returns were disclosed as a matter of course.
That's because for most of your entire life they WERE. AND....? We're not talking about President Grover Cleveland disappearing for four days to have secret surgery on a yacht. We all saw what we saw over the last administration. Those of us who made mention of Biden's stark physical and cognitive decline were called cooks and cranks. They used the magic of TV editing and even a little free advice from Steven Spielberg to make Biden seem viable...... How did all that work out? It would appear that Biden's work calendar is free on Wednesdays now...
reading about the new psa guidelines, it doesn't seem like much of a change, except that they've moved the burden of decision to the patient.
