This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Gregory Swanson, MD
Scott and White Clinic Temple, Tex

JAMA. 1996;275(1):31.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I was disappointed in the study by Dr Albertsen and colleagues.¹ Let's start with the central conclusion. Men with prostate cancer with Gleason score 2 to 4 are well served (no loss of years) with no or hormonal treatment. First, half of this group had nonpalpable (ie, classic Al or A2) disease. Also, Gleason score is a major prognostic factor, so it is no surprise that these men are less likely to die of prostate cancer. For stage Al disease, observation has been advocated for some time.² Within those guidelines, only 20 of the patients with Gleason score 2 to 4 in this current study would have been treated (the number with A2/Bx disease). If 44 patients (total number of Gleason score 2 to 4) isn't already a low enough number of patients on which to make conclusions about potential impact of treatment, 20 certainly . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Margaret A. Winker, MD, Senior Editor, and Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, Senior Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?