Submitted by giuliomagnifico t3_1115v8u in science
I was guessing just on the headline alone that it was because of higher levels of vigilance for signs of cancer and compliance with treatment.
[deleted]
“…the researchers are confident that the findings can be explained by an ‘awareness’ effect, and provide further evidence of the benefits of programmes to identify men at high risk and potentially screen for disease.”
There’s also the ‘doctors awareness.’ I know my chart says I have a family history of colon cancer and heart disease. I got my first colonoscopy at 42, long before it is recommended. I go to a cardiologist at the recommendation of my GP and get an EKG at least once a year.
I’m in the US, so I also have a strong suspicion that those tests would not be approved for insurance without that family history.
Good point. I’m in the “family history” situation too and the extra attention is comforting.
That's an incredible turnaround based on 'knowledge is power'. Genetic risk=extra vigilance.
In addition to just increased awareness if someone had a relative with prostate cancer, it’s becoming more common for such men to get tested for the BRCA gene variants. Most people associate these with breast cancer in women, but they also increase men’s risk of prostate cancer substantially, as much as 4X.
https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-brca-gene
Insurance will usually cover the test if you have a family history, and then your provider will schedule more frequent screenings, e.g. PSA tests.
"were up to a fifth less likely to die from prostate cancer or any cause compared with those with no family history of cancer".. Misleading because "or any cause" means death for whatever reason you can think of..
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I am 43 years old, man. Should I get diagnostic for prostate cancer at m'y âge? At what âge?
The only reason to be wary is that sometimes the PSA test gives a false positive and you need to abstain from sex before having the test. It doesn't mean don't get tested but be aware that the false positive can happen and that generally means more invasive testing. And talk to your doctor about when along with family history. It's a no-brainer to me at my age along with colon cancer screening.
That said I've known two men who died from it. One in his fifties about 15 years ago and one in his seventies very recently. The guy in his fifties was particularly sad because he was a Vietnam vet who had been wounded and thought the pain was related to that. Nicest and friendliest guy in the world taken way too soon.
I have significant family history, so docs started testing me at 44 or 45. PSA started going up at 47 … accurately indicating a tumor, confirmed by biopsy which I had removed.
Have any of your immediate relatives tested for genetic markers, or had prostate or breast cancer?
Not that I know of...
Your chances are probably not very high then. Obviously, it’s not a foolproof way of approaching things, but these cancers very very often have a generic component to them.
If your parents have been tested for genetic markers, at least that tells you some of the story
me_not_at_work t1_j8cxm5s wrote
Because they were more aware and vigilant resulting in earlier diagnosis and treatment. The familial connection is social not genetic.