PDA

View Full Version : Steve Lavin diagnosed with prostate cancer



Fred Garvin 2.0
04-08-2011, 10:37 PM
Just wondering: if you get it early are you more prone to the aggressive strain?

Titanxman04
04-09-2011, 05:23 AM
I saw this last night. Sorry to hear that he has to go through such an ordeal, but it just goes to show you folks that you need to get tested early and often so to speak.

I found out recently that my grandfather had it and got it treated and it was easily taken care of. It's something that can be prevented and it never hurts to get checked out.

Best wishes to him and his family. For however you feel about him on the court and how his team performed for the year, Lavin seems to be a good guy and a not some prick roaming the sidelines ala that Syracuse prick.

Lloyd Braun
04-09-2011, 08:06 AM
I saw this last night. Sorry to hear that he has to go through such an ordeal, but it just goes to show you folks that you need to get tested early and often so to speak.

I found out recently that my grandfather had it and got it treated and it was easily taken care of. It's something that can be prevented and it never hurts to get checked out.

Best wishes to him and his family. For however you feel about him on the court and how his team performed for the year, Lavin seems to be a good guy and a not some prick roaming the sidelines ala that Syracuse prick.

There is a fine line here. While most men should be checked at some point in time, the evidence based medicine approach will recognize that men can be overtreated and harm can be done.

There is not a clear-cut recommendation from all urologists, as their opinions will differ.

Here is some information if you are willing to take some time to read about the benefits and risks of being tested:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43401/

PMI
04-09-2011, 10:22 AM
I met Lavin at the play-in game at the dump a few years ago. He was a really friendly dude willing to converse with people. He's also a very good basketball coach. I hope he's alright.

LadyMuskie
04-09-2011, 02:34 PM
I heard about this and my thoughts and prayers go out to his family. Hopefully, they've caught it early enough that it is treatable.

Fred Garvin 2.0
04-09-2011, 07:29 PM
There is a fine line here. While most men should be checked at some point in time, the evidence based medicine approach will recognize that men can be overtreated and harm can be done.There is not a clear-cut recommendation from all urologists, as their opinions will differ.

Here is some information if you are willing to take some time to read about the benefits and risks of being tested:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK43401/

Yeah i've read about unnecessary psa(s) with the elderly.
I remember when my dad was on the Cassodex. His boobs were bigger than Mrs.Snipe's.

kmcrawfo
04-09-2011, 07:58 PM
I met Lavin at the play-in game at the dump a few years ago. He was a really friendly dude willing to converse with people. He's also a very good basketball coach. I hope he's alright.

It is important to differentiate the difference between a PSA vs. digital prostate exam. One is a blood test that may be suspect in terms of its true benefit; the other, a physical finding on exam.

Unless things have changed substantially from when I was in school/internship, the digital prostate exam remains a very important tool in the early detection of prostate cancer. With early detection of the carcinoma your treatment options are certainly more expansive. Radical surgical excision is not usually needed for early disease.

If caught late in the game (i.e. bone mets, etc.) the outcome is much more ominous.

Titanxman04
04-09-2011, 08:37 PM
yeah i've read about unnecessary psa(s) with the elderly.
I remember when my dad was on the cassodex. his boobs were bigger than mrs.snipe's.

yowza!

Fred Garvin 2.0
04-09-2011, 11:38 PM
[QUOTE=kmcrawfo;266416]It is important to differentiate the difference between a PSA vs. digital prostate exam. One is a blood test that may be suspect in terms of its true benefit; the other, a physical finding on exam.

Unless things have changed substantially from when I was in school/internship, the digital prostate exam remains a very important tool in the early detection of prostate cancer. With early detection of the carcinoma your treatment options are certainly more expansive. Radical surgical excision is not usually needed for early disease.

If caught late in the game (i.e. bone mets, etc.) the outcome is much more ominous.[/QUOTE

I hear ya. Im 41 and had the digital. I inherited my dad's doc and she performed that test before I knew it. Thought i was gonna piss all over the place!

What i'm interested in is the psa. Isn't is possible that you could have a low psa and a fast growing cancer?

kmcrawfo
04-10-2011, 11:14 AM
[QUOTE=kmcrawfo;266416]It is important to differentiate the difference between a PSA vs. digital prostate exam. One is a blood test that may be suspect in terms of its true benefit; the other, a physical finding on exam.

Unless things have changed substantially from when I was in school/internship, the digital prostate exam remains a very important tool in the early detection of prostate cancer. With early detection of the carcinoma your treatment options are certainly more expansive. Radical surgical excision is not usually needed for early disease.

If caught late in the game (i.e. bone mets, etc.) the outcome is much more ominous.[/QUOTE

I hear ya. Im 41 and had the digital. I inherited my dad's doc and she performed that test before I knew it. Thought i was gonna piss all over the place!

What i'm interested in is the psa. Isn't is possible that you could have a low psa and a fast growing cancer?

In medicine almost anything is possible.... Always and never are 2 words I have learned to not use as over my 8 years since starting dermatology I have too many things that should not/could happen; indeed occur.

That being said probability is fair game... In my opinion (please take a dermatologist's opinion on PSA with a grain of salt), the PSA test should be utilized as another tool in your physician's arsenal. It is not a good stand alone test. It provides evidence to support a supposition, diagnosis, and/or prognosis.

A high PSA would be concerning for a higher risk of carcinoma, mets, more aggressive tumor. However, this needs to be combined with the entire clinical picture (i.e. exam findings, imaging, biopsy results, etc.) A low PSA would be reasurring that your risk of cancer is low; however, in a nodule is felt on exam a biopsy probably still would be performed and the pathology would trump whatever the PSA showed.

I have seen people die from carcinoma that should have a 97-99% cure rate after surgery and I have seen people live with a carcinoma that after staging offers a 10-12% 5-year survival. This is a world of Bell-curves and statistics based on the evidence available at your doctors disposal. Generally speaking, a specialist (in this case urologist) is going to be much more informed on the most recent trials, data, etc regarding PSA utility vs. a family practice doc, dermatologist, etc.

This may not answer your question, but I hope it is somewhat helpful. The bottom line is that these labs and studies are helpful, but definitely not infallible.