Should lowest-risk prostate cancer still be called “cancer”? UCLA-led study suggests changing the name could save lives

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email
Share on print

A growing number of prostate cancer experts argue that calling the lowest-risk prostate cancer “cancer” does more harm than good. A UCLA-led study found removing the cancer label could dramatically reduce overtreatment and encourage more men to get screened, potentially leading to significantly fewer deaths from aggressive prostate cancer.

To access this subscriber-only content please log in or subscribe.

If your institution has a site license, log in with IP-login or register for a sponsored account.*
*Not all site licenses are enrolled in sponsored accounts.

Login Subscribe
Table of Contents

YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

At the recommended regimen, 73% of patients receiving a pasritamig and JNJ-9401 combination, two bispecific antibodies designed to work together to drive the body’s immune response against advanced prostate cancer, achieved reductions of at least 50% in prostate-specific antigen, according to the results of a first-in-human phase I study. 
An international phase III clinical trial that treated patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer with apalutamide—a next-generation neoadjuvant androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor—plus hormone therapy before and after prostate cancer surgery, was further validated by a substudy demonstrating a reduced risk of metastasis or death compared with standard of care.
An international phase III clinical trial that treated patients with high-risk localized and locally advanced prostate cancer with apalutamide—a next-generation neoadjuvant androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor—plus hormone therapy before and after prostate cancer surgery, was further validated by a substudy demonstrating a reduced risk of metastasis or death compared with standard of care.

Never miss an issue!

Get alerts for our award-winning coverage in your inbox.

Login