![Prostate cancer: what if ablation was not essential?](https://img.passeportsante.net/1000x526/2016-09-21/i36741-cancer-de-la-prostate-et-si-l-ablation-n-etait-pas-indispensable.jpg)
September 21, 2016.
According to a study conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Oxford, UK, prostate removal is not the only effective treatment for cancer. Explanations.
In the case of localized prostate cancer
When prostate cancer is diagnosed, the most common treatment is surgery. What if this solution was not essential? This is the question posed by a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. According to this work, men with localized prostate cancer are almost as likely to die within ten years of diagnosis, whether or not they have had surgery.
To reach this conclusion, the researchers followed more than 1,600 patients between the ages of 50 and 69. These people, who suffered from localized prostate cancer, followed three different treatment methods: radiotherapy, surgery and active surveillance. This monitoring results in regular medical visits, a control of the prostate, biopsies and a test to measure the progression of the disease.
No significant difference between monitoring and surgery
In the end, only 17 patients died within 10 years of diagnosis: 8 were in the surveillance group, 5 had undergone surgery and 4 had received radiation therapy. Certainly patients who were in the monitoring group were at greater risk of dying, but in the end the difference was not significant.
” This study seems to show that for men with localized prostate cancer, active surveillance is not much more dangerous and avoids the potential harmful effects that may result from the surgery on sexual activity and the intestines Said John Burn, professor of genetics at the University of Newcastle, UK.
According to previous American studies, nearly half of American patients with localized prostate cancer would choose active surveillance rather than surgery or radiation therapy.
Read also: Benign prostatic hyperplasia