Talk:Prostate cancer/Archive 2

message: An article in this week's Arch Intern Med disputes the effects of DRE/PSA screening on mortality; it's a case-control study from a population of 71661, 501 of whom got prostate cancer and were matched with controls. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is part of the difficult balance we faced with the screening discussion. We'd talked about having a whole article concerning the usefulness of screening and I would still be for it! InvictaHOG 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated Screening (medicine) for the MCOTW.  Please take a look.  --Rewster 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screening useless? 

message: I have removed the list of celebrity sufferers from the page. I feel that if it belongs on Wikipedia, it should go on a separate page. Seriously, most men could be on this list and there's no easy way to verify (the list is not referenced!) InvictaHOG 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity sufferers 

message: A few things I noted on the back of an envelope while reading this article:
1. As far as I am aware, there is no proof that carcinoma of the prostate (CaP) arises from prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN). The two are closely associated, and it has been estimated that approxiamtely 50% of men with high grade PIN will later have a diagnosis of CaP, but I have not read any proof that one leads to, or gives rise to, the other.
2. Your PSA values are not correct. Even using "older" reference ranges, above 4 ng/ml is abnormal. It is true that the risk of having CaP with a PSA of 4 - 10 does not change much across that range (approx. 25%), and significantly increases when above 10, I have never heard a PSA of, say, 9 being termed "borderline". More recently, in an attempt to improve the positive and negative predictive values of PSA, urologists are using age-specific reference ranges. Thus, 4.0 might be normal in an 80 year old, but abnormal in a 60 year old.
3. Lastly, you have incorporated the Gleason score in the staging of the disease. This is a bit of pedantry, but the Gleason score is *not* part of the staging. It is the grading of the disease. Two people can have identically staged diseases with different Gleason scores.
Other than these points, I think the article is spot on, and I don't think anyone would be grossly misled by the article as it stands (hence, I have not edited it). If anyone wants to incorporate my comments into the article, I would be pleased to find the appropriate references.
Jfbcubed 12:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's wrong, fix it! Be bold! JFW | T@lk 12:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Jfbcubed 13:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta muchly :) GeeJo (t) (c) • 18:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent article, but I have a few thoughts 

message: A recent edit altered the phrase "female cervix" to "female uterine cervix".  Is this really needed, the addition of "uterine"?  It seems that there wouldn't be any confusion or inaccuracy by leaving "uterine" out. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "cervix" vs. "uterine cervix" <small>(resolved)</small> 

message: A recent edit introduced then re-introduced after removal a link to the American Cancer Society in the External Links section.  It seems that such a general link shouldn't be here, otherwise one should advocate addition of this link to every article in Wikipedia that has anything to do with cancer. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was removed but it has been added back again.  I'm wondering what the motivation is behind people adding this link back to the article over and over and over again? User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link - American Cancer Society 

message: A recent edit introduced a link in the External Links section to the Cancer Survivors Network.  This seems to be too general a link to include here and, like the American Cancer Society link mentioned above, could be added to every article in Wikipedia related to cancer. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link - Cancer Survivors Network 

message: In the first section, there are two refs to ACS. They get numbered [1] and[2], although they point to the same numbered item.  This is causing all the following refs to be off by one.  I can diagnose the problem but I am not clear on how to fix it. David.Throop 03:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote numbering off by one 

message: Hmm I want evidence to support the claim that cancer of the prostate is more deadly in black men than other men.  I think the basis is that black men are less likely to seek help than others when it come to their cancer, but I doubt that it is more deadly because of the color of your skin.  This claim should have a reference
* Well, there's evidence both ways. This month's journal Cancer (106(6):1276-85) suggests that the racial differences might just be explained by socio-economic differences (although, even adjusting for all this, African Americans still had a slightly higher (but just significant) mortality than Caucasians...). Furthermore, a meta-analysis in Urology (2004 Aug;64(2):212-7) suggests black men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer have no increased mortality compared to white men.
*On the other hand, there is evidence to support the assertion that, independent of reluctance to seek medical help, black men have a worse clinical course (see Freeman, et al. Am J Public Health. 2004 May;94(5):803-8). The SEER data analysis also found excess deaths in black men compared to white controls, but the dataset lacks potential confounders such social status (Ries, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2000. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute).
*Whether ethnicity is, in itself, an independent preditor of disease outcome has been a matter of considerable debate for some time. There is a sizeable UK government study aimed, amongst other things, to try and establish this. For a reasonable review (albeit a bit out-of-date), see: Evans, S., Ben-Shlomo, Y. & Persad, R. (2003); "Prostate cancer in Black and White men: are there differences in risk or prognosis?". BJU International 92 (9), 878-879.
Jfbcubed 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black men and prostate cancer 

message: I have a serious problem with the following:
"Many factors, including genetics and diet, have been implicated in the development of prostate cancer, but as of 2005, it is not a preventable disease."
Not preventable -- you mean despite the digital rectal exam, the PSA test, etc.
This is questionable and should be reviewed.
216.194.0.6 07:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea what you are referring to here. I know of no (and a search has found none) study in the British Medical Journal dealing with prostate cancer and ejaculatory frequency. In fact, a large JAMA study found no association and the information on ejaculation is lucky to be in the article still. There's been one study (linked in the article) which was retrospective and simply found a correlation between a history of increased ejaculation and prostate cancer. Nowhere has there been a randomized or even simply prospective trial looking at ejaculation and prostate cancer and I would ask that you remove the citation needed tag unless you further explain what it is you object to. There has not been any proven method to prevent prostate cancer and the statement is thus true. InvictaHOG 09:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching on google I've found that the research I was referring to, is actually already in the article :), as note 34. It is used in section "Epidemiology" with note 33 to substain: In recent years, studies have linked increased frequency of masturbation or ejaculation to decreased risk of prostate cancer. More precisely, Leitzmann's study (note 34) shows a risk decrease of 33% with at least 21 ejaculation per month. Should that sentence be moved to the article intro regarding prevention? Anyway I'll take out the fact tag until the end of discussion. (Redundancy note: Giles' study seems to present twice as note 23 and 33). --BMF81 10:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the redundancy (it seems that half the people who edit the article have come here just to add that fact - I've removed several redundant instances in the past! I went ahead and got rid of the statement on prevention - it is a useless sentence fragment which can never be truly proven - how many cases do you have to prevent to say that prostate cancer is prevented? One? All? There's no need for it. If there were an easy way to explain the lack of prospective randomized data on prevention in the lead, it might be nice to add. But I couldn't think of one and it's out of the scope of the lead anyway, IMHO.InvictaHOG 10:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventable?? 

message: I'm a victim of prostate cancer, and I congratulate everyone involved in creating this excellent article, which is by far the best overview of the subject I've seen (and believe me, I've read everything I can). I just wanted to say to the younger men out there that my doctors have noticed a trend with younger men coming in -- some of them in their 20s -- with urinary dysfunction, and it turns out they have an aggressive cancer that has spread beyond the prostate. Please don't listen if your doctor tells you to wait until you're 50 to have a PSA test. Get it now.
* My experience, being a urology resident involved in the largest prostate cancer screening trial ever attempted (ProTect), is that using PSA to screen for disease below the age of 50 is of little value. The current trial protocol invites men over 50 with PSAs >3.0 to have a biopsy. When the trial started, men over 45 with PSAs >2.5 were also invited. Few men were recruited in this group, but extremely few in this age group with this PSA had disease and so this arm of the trial was discontinued. I am not trying to discredit the sentiments expressed above, but it must be remembered that the positive predictive value of a test is exquisitely sensitive to the prevalence of disease in the measured population. Thus, the inherent value of a PSA test falls as the patient becomes younger (basically, a high PSA is more likey to represent benign inflammation the younger you are, rather than cancer).
Jfbcubed 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A fine article 

message: When I read it, the article said:
: It is the second most common type of cancer in men, and among men it is responsible for more deaths than any other cancer except lung cancer.
As prostate cancer rates vary profoundly throughout the world I have added a qualifier to the sentence. It now reads:
: It is the second most common type of cancer in men in the United States, and is responsible for more male deaths than any other cancer except lung cancer.
Please see  Michael Glass 07:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence rates that apply to the USA 

message: Okay, I'm being pedantic, but an encyclopedia probably should be pedantic.  Prostate carcinoma is by far the most common form of prostate cancer, but prostate rhabdomyosarcoma is more common in children and younger men, up to something like 30 yrs old.
Either someone should do a global replace of "prostate carcinoma" for every "prostate cancer" including the title, or leave the title and replace most of the other references and add something about other forms of prostate cancer. 
I'll do it myself, if others agree.  But I didn't want to butcher up a featured article with my first contribution to it.
Jpbrody 17:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if that's the case, shouldn't it be prostate adenocarcinoma then!  Changing the title to "prostate carcinoma" is probably too pedantic and may be counterproductive to the overall goal of the article.  Rather than a global replace, perhaps a mention of the distinction between adenocarcinoma and rhabdomyosarcoma would be helpful.  Andrew73 17:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it is pedantry, but I guess I agree with the accuracy. There are also other types of prostate tumours (including malignant solitary fibrous tumour of the prostate we've described, see ) It should read "adenocarcinoma" - but I would leave the title as "Prostate Cancer" - we still want people to find the page! Jfbcubed 18:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is an article about  prostate carcinoma, not prostate cancer 

message: This article has been selected for inclusion into Version 0.5 due to its importance and quality; however, is it possible to convert the bare links on the lead section to proper references? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations]] 

message: Hi, I noticed your edits on prostate cancer. I'm not sure what the driving force for consolidation of the Prevention and Epidemiology sections was. They are obviously quite different in scope, though some overlap is to be expected (and could be excised!). It also deviates from the template for medical articles and makes the epidemiology section quite long. I am inclined to revert the changes but would love to hear your thoughts on the matter! You can either reply on my talk page or that of prostate cancer! InvictaHOG 20:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi InvictaHOG, The 'driving force' was someone adding stuff about lycopene into Prevention that was already present in Epidemiology. There is also duplication over other items e.g. ejaculation frequency. In a spontaneous decision, I thought it best to get these overlapping sections together, so duplication and differences are made more obvious and can then be added. I wasn't aware of any template and don't have strong feelings about restoring two sections, just so long as they have clear and distinct purposes and don't end up largely overlapping. Nunquam Dormio 12:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention and Epidemiology 

message: I don't see anywhere in the article where it says this and I think it's of importance since that's what I was looking for when I looked for this article. 84.109.52.88 18:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The prognosis section breaks it down by country, diagnosis, etc. If you need something more specific, just let us know and we'll add it if it is known. InvictaHOG 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rate of deaths 

message: I'd just like to point out that linear accelerators produce radiation by accelerating electrons and focussing them at a high-Z target.  The resulting Bremmstrahhlung photons are technically x-rays.  Gamma-rays are produced by radioactive decay of an unstable isotope, the most famous in the context of radiotherapy being Cobalt-60. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.96.26 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you know far more about this than I do. Feel free to edit the article! InvictaHOG 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gamma-rays vs. X-rays 

message: Someone replaced "erection" with "stiffness" in the Symptoms section.  I have changed the word back to "erection," since this is the legitimate, neutral term for erection of the penis.  People, this is the prostate cancer page, we should be mature enough to have the word "erection" on it.  "Stiffness" seems like something Borat would say, or akin to the slang "stiffie," and is not a good euphemism for "erection."  It is what it is.  The animal researchers call erections "flips," but I don't think laypeople would understand that word.  I hope nobody reverts the word back.  Whatever, there are thousands of words in the article, but this one matters some.--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stiffness" 

message: I can't see any evidence that carbohydrates affect the likelyhood of getting prostate cancer.  I'm removing that until someone provides cites.  Novalis 14:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbs 

message: “What this paper shows is that if you take human prostate cancer cells and add pectin, you can induce programmed cell death,” said Mohnen, a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology. “If you do the same with non-cancerous cells, cell death doesn’t occur.”  Brian Pearson 02:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a trial in people, and perhaps it may be notable. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Until a full trial has been performed we can't really claim that there are any "successful" methods, since they haven't been shown to have an effect yet; I see no reason not to include information on some putative new treatments though (those which have shown to be promising in the lab or in animal trials), providing the article makes it clear they're still in development and are not currently used as treatments. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study: Pectin kills prostate cancer cells 

message: reviews the biology and treatment of prostate cancer in this month's J Clin Invest. JFW | T@lk 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JCI article 

message: reference 21 points to http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php which is some sort of "reference-generator" :S 
Vancomycin (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the reference with the journal article that the news article was referring to, the url should work. - Optigan13 (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad link? 

message: There seems to be some information that contradicts itself on this article.
Under "Etiology" the article says: "Other dietary factors that may increase prostate cancer risk include low intake of vitamin E (Vitamin E is found in green, leafy vegetables), omega-3 fatty acids (found in fatty fishes like salmon), and the mineral selenium. "
However under "Prevention" the article says: "Two dietary supplements, vitamin E and selenium, may help prevent prostate cancer when taken daily."
I am assuming under Etiology is should be decrease instead of increase?
OR
Is it saying "low intake" as in insufficient ammounts of vitamin E may increase risk of prostate cancer?
Either way the way its worded is a little confusing and my first impression is that this was a typo.
Thanks 
Stvns78 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Low is used as in "insufficient."  Because of the qualifiers here "insufficient" may incorrectly sound as if there is a known "sufficient" quantity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.49.189 (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information? 

message: We should probably integrate some content from  JFW | T@lk 08:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NICE guideline 

message: I've removed the following paragraphs:
===Diet===
There is now growing medical evidence for the effectiveness of diet in counteracting prostate cancer.
Lycopene is a naturally occurring chemical found in tomatoes, watermelons, pink grapefruits, papaya, and guava (Gann, Peter H., Giovannucci, Edward L. p.14-15).  Cooked tomatoes and tomato sauce are actually better than raw tomatoes because cooking them releases lycopene from their storage sites, changes the way our bodies absorb it, and affects the growth of prostate cancer cells.  Next, we have cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, brussel sprouts, bok choy, and kale.  This is because they contain sulforaphane, a compound that increases protein activity that cleans up the damage done by ingesting cancer-causing carcinogens (Gann, et al, p. 16-17). Polyphenols found in red wine and green tea have shown to prevent, slow, and kill the formation of cancer cells, as have isoflavones (genistein, daidzein, and equol) from soy-based foods.  However, too much can neutralize its benefits (Alberts & Hess, p. 298).
The "Western-style" diet is notorious for including a lot of fats and red meat.  This kind of diet has long been associated with a high risk for many diseases and cancers.  The previously cited report Nutrition and Prostate Cancer (Gann, et al) focuses on two issues of the "Western-style" diet:  the type of fat and the cooking method.  Substituting some fish for red meat is not only a "heart healthy" choice, but research shows that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish and fish oils decreases the risk of developing prostate cancer by 26 percent.  Those who like to grill meat may want to switch to an alternate form of cooking.  Charring left on meat off the grill has been linked to cancer-causing carcinogens.  One dieting alternative, as reported in the article Cancer Proof Your Prostate by Matt Bean of Men’s Health Magazine, is a Mediterranean-style of diet.  It states that the reason why Western European men have much lower prostate cancer rates than Americans do is because they eat decent amounts of garlic, pasta sauce, and scallions.  In fact, those that eat more than 10 grams of garlic or scallions daily have a 50 percent lower risk of developing prostate cancer.
1.  Moyad, Mark A.  The ABC’s of Nutrition and Supplements for Prostate Cancer, Sleeping Bear Press, MI, USA, 2000.
2.  Alberts, David S., Hess, Lisa M.  Fundamentals of Cancer Prevention, Springer Publishing Company, Berlin, Germany, 2005, p. 277-283, 292-307.
3.  Gann, Peter H., Giovannucci, Edward L.  "Nutrition and Prostate Cancer," Prostate Cancer Foundation, 2005.
4.  Bean, Matt.  "Cancer Proof Your Prostate,"  Men’s Health, www.menshealth.com, Rodale Inc., 2007.
Wells, Sara.  "Hedonist’s Guide to Prostate Prevention," Men’s Health, www.menshealth.com, Rodale Inc., 2007.
There are a couple of issues. The sourcing is not adequate (Men's Health?) We should discuss lycopene, but we need to use better sources. There is a lot of published literature and even a few recent review articles on the subject (e.g. , ). Let's use those. Also, this should be in the "Prevention" section, worked into the existing text there, and not in the "Treatment" section. Let's work on it here. MastCell Talk 05:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: MastCell makes a good point here.  Though there is some population data that certain dietary modifications can reduce the risk of developing cancer, no reliable data that I know of show that it can fight cancer.  I try to work on the text for placing this in "Prevention" when I have a little more time. Djma12 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: Why were the sections reverted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prostate_cancer&diff=199887399&oldid=199105475) that started:
:"Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) currently do not add any significant information in the assessment of possible lymph node metastases in patients with prostate cancer according to a meta-analysis."
and
:"In the hands of an experienced surgeon, robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) can reduce positive surgical margins when compared to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) among patients with prostate cancer according to a retrospective study." [I think 'may reduce' might be better than 'can reduce']
reverted by user:orangemarlin for reasons of advsertisting. All that was done was report two medline abstracts. I do not see how this is advertising. Ok to restore these sections (at the same time fixing the links to PubMed using citeref)? Thanks - Badgettrg (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Orangemarlin was indeed worried about advertising. If we remove the URine tests and replace them with cite templates everything should be fine. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: Sorry guys, I can't find any serious peer-reviewed articles that state frequent masturbation has an effect on the risk of prostate cancer.  Mostly, what I find in the most recent studies is that there is no effect.  I deleted most of the paragraph, since much of the writing was related to a newspaper article.  I ran a pubmed to see if anything came up (so to speak, I know, there are dozens of puns here), and all I could find was not much.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the above and looked at the original sources, then followed them up and found the study. Peer-reviewed, saying quite what the text had said. Then I looked at the article Orangemarlin had cited, calling it "the most recent studies," -- it's one study, issued shortly after the Australian study -- and it appears to confirm the Australian study, but the matter is a bit unclear, since, in the abstract, which is all I've read, two opposite conclusions seem to exist. There is also a reply by Giles to the later study in JAMA, which isn't abstracted, I'd have to get access to full text. The Giles study has attracted a lot of attention, to remove this wasn't proper. The issue isn't "masturbation," the issue is ejaculation frequency, and earlier studies had only focused on sexual intercourse, looking for evidence of infectious agents. One follow-up to the Giles study seems to criticize it for not considering the effect of oxytocin, which is a bit puzzling to me, since that would be a mechanism and not particularly relevant to the finding re frequency, perhaps the Giles article speculates about mechanism. I've replaced the material, including expanding what Orangemarlin inserted to make it more balanced. --Abd (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masturbation 

message: Insert non-formatted text here
As is true with the general trend of treatment discussions in the US, this article has a heavy slant toward RALP being a better treatment option.  It may or or may not be and if it is, it's only after a rather steep learning curve.  The data isn't ready for that yet.  In addition to that, the perineal doesn't even get mentioned despite the fact it's still done, has no abdominal incisions, short catheter duration, etc etc etc.  Intuitive has done a wonderful advertising job for their product and we don't need to serve for more free advertisement here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourskeptic (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robotics 

message: It looks like the redirection comment about HRPC is wrong (top of the article).
... I have no idea how to update this. 85.27.110.140 (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in redirection ? 

message: Could something regarding the use of cannabinoids to treat prostate cancer be added to the article? Unfortunately there are no current treatments avaialble but numerous research has shown that cannabinoids can cause apoptosis. Particuarly this paper  - which states the following.
"Treatment with a cannabinoid (WIN55,212-2) resulted in a dose-dependent inhibition of cell growth and induction of apoptosis in cancer cells..... Based on these data we suggest that cannabinoid receptor agonists should be considered as novel agents for the management of prostate cancer". Also this paper from 1999.
Supposed (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabinoids 

message: How do people die from prostate cancer.
not treating it.
:They generally die from metastatic disease (cancer going to the bone or other organs.)  Very locally advanced cancer can also invade into surrounding structures (bladder, rectum), etc...  Djma12 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: This is the quote from the prevention section that is incorrect. It is also flawed in other ways as well.
"Green tea may be protective (due to its polyphenol content),[39] although the most comprehensive clinical study indicates that it has no protective effect.[40]"
The study quoted was not a clinical study, but a prospective epidemiologic one. 
It would be nice if someone with more time and knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia would ask them to post some guidlines for contributors, or immprove the ones they have. 
Comments like the quote above that have a date limited time span should include the date. E g the quote above should have read, "although",  AS OF 2006 "the most comprehensive clinical study indicates that it has no protective effect"
Papers reporting a numerical value should be quoted, not paraphrased. E G The most comprehensive clinical study reported a nonsignificant OR of .85 (95% confidence interval 0.50-1.43, trend P=0.81) for those drinking over five cups/day.  It can then be seen that the report does not indicate no protective effect.
Review papers, not individual studies should as a rule be quoted when available. 
In 2007 a Japanese study that was 2.5 times as "comprehensive" published,  finding, and I quote,  "Green tea was not associated with localized prostate cancer. However, consumption was associated with a dose-dependent decrease in the risk of advanced prostate cancer. The multivariate relative risk was 0.52 (95% confidence interval: 0.28, 0.96) for men drinking 5 or more cups/day compared with less than 1 cup/day (p(trend) = 0.01). Green tea may be associated with a decreased risk of advanced prostate cancer."  PMID: 17906295
Language such has "Green tea was not associated with localized prostate cancer" is permitted by medical custom. But acutual values are prefferred by most scientists. Failure to use the preferred method can be construed as bias.
Language such as "indicates that it has no protective effect" clearly has a different meaning, and is not permitted by medical custom. 
Here's a quote from the most recent review paper I know of "RESULTS: Forty-three epidemiological studies, four randomized trials and one meta-analysis were identified. The overall quality of these studies was evaluated as good or moderate. While some evidence suggests that green tea has beneficial effects on gastrointestinal cancers, the findings are not consistent. CONCLUSION: Green tea may have beneficial effects on cancer prevention. Further studies such as large and long term cohort studies and clinical trials are warranted." PMID: 18940008 
The review was for overall cancer. In the full text, available free on line at pubmed prostate cancer was mentioned as one of the cancers potentially benefitted by green tea. If I recall correctly.
69.69.48.43 (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes definitely a work in progress.  Any help is much appreciated.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect statement on the main page 

message: Some long sections (eg Screening) summarize (or duplicate) other articles (Prostate cancer screening).
Any objection to condensing the long sections here ?  Rod57 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sections too long 

message: Prostate cancer folate supplementation is a new article that I believe would be best handled by merging into the "Prevention" section of this one.  While there is a list of URLs for references, the subject is probably too narrow to justify a full article about it.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention 

message: Diet is a very interesting and important issue, but the current section is more speculation than fact.  One small study proves nothing.  Findings that "approach significance" are NOT significant, and can't be considered evidence of a causal effect. Wikipedia articles on important health issues should be based on more authoratative research information, such as several peer-reviewed studies or at least one very large, well-designed study.  I deleted a few sentences and plan to delete more of this section but will wait to see if there are any comments or if anyone can add some better references.
Umarylandmd (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Umarylandmd's edits. It's important that Wikipedia articles on science and medicine reflect a broad consensus within the research community rather than the latest (or, in some cases, a rather stale) primary research finding. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Devoting a long paragraph to this single study does not seem to be encyclopaedic, nor would it appear to satisfy WP:MEDRS in the absence of corroborating evidence and review coverage in the past five years. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: And, honestly, a 4% reduction in PSA levels? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

text: I apologise; I didn't edit this article until recently and hadn't seen your proposal. However, I maintain that what you've written is inappropriate for this article, our main article on prostate cancer. If you are interested in this topic, perhaps you could create a new article on alternative, complementary or holistic treatments for prostate cancer, to which this level of detail would be more suited. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on Diet 

message: Recommended less  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screening with PSA 

message: It seems that "screening" would be more useful and logical if placed before "diagnosis." I'd like to move it if there is no objection. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: support.--Amaher (talk) 11:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screening before Diagnosis? 

message: It seems that new material added to this section may have affected the neutrality issues and needs reworking. As the edit differences indicate, , almost all of the material added came from a single source, and are phrased where one doctor from Roswell is presenting conclusions from another doctor at the same institute.  There are also lengthy and repetetive quotations from this single source, where the source itself was written in order to present contrary information to cited material in the section. This may go against conflict of interest guidelines with the potentially excessive quotations leading to undue weight to the contrary point of view. The fact that it came from an industry-specific newsletter by American Urological Association, also implies a POV source.
I think that the new citation should, of course, be added, but trimmed so that it does not become a mere recitation from one source.  Nor should cited material be removed without explanation, especially where it gives conclusions from other institutions and replaces them with contrary conclusions, such as in this paragraph which was deleted without explanation:
:"A study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that over a 7 to 10 year period, "screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over."[59] Former screening proponents, including some from Stanford University, have come out against routine testing. In February 2010, the American Cancer Society urged "more caution in using the test." And the American College of Preventive Medicine concluded that "there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on "Controversy" 

message: I have added some information on several new treatments for metastatic prostate cancer, including this, and this. Immunize  (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating article 

message: "Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s." This appears to be incorrect. I read through the cited article and it appears to be conflicting. The actual numbers, based on figures 1 and 3, appear to be closer to 10% and 35%, respectively rather than 30% and 80%. 171.65.79.247 (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Autopsy data 

message: Seems to need more on "Small cell carcinoma" which is mentioned briefly just once, and not in the classification section. Rod57 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small cell carcinoma 

message: It's not easy to find in the article anything on metastatic prostate cancer. Rod57 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metastatic prostate cancer 

message: There's a section (10.3 atm) with unknown title.  Can someone move this into a more relevant location or remove it entirely?
Bigmantonyd (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  10.3 ? 

message: it shows up in the epidemiology section, where the sequence is 127, 128, 129...2...stray </ref> tag....131, 132, 133...
2 goes to what might be a plausible reference for that statement; but based on the markup the stray ref tag goes to 131 and isn't working because someone did not replace "journal" with the journal name. I do not know if fixing this will make  the numbering work properly -- I don't understand what happened to 130 -- and am afraid to mess with the citations in this very complex and well-researched article. Not sure I could fix it if I broke it, at least maybe not without painfully learning some markup ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 23:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with reference numbering 

message: Thanks for writing this entry.  According to this article from the July 14th 2011 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA is not approving the use of finasteride or dutasteride for prevention of prostate cancer because two recent trials have shown that although the drugs reduce prostate cancer diagnoses overall, they also lead to a increase in the incidence of more serious forms of the disease.
Dmfedor (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on Prevention / Medications 

message: The assertion that there is an anti-male bias in cancer research and funding based solely on comparing breast cancer with prostate cancer is irresponsible. Some questions one would have to address in order to actually make a factual statement about bias include: what are the rates of incidence male and female cancers? what is the rate of fatality and at what age do those with male or female cancers die? and to compare speed of referral one would also have to account for the difference in the rate of growth of these cancers. Isn't comparing only breast cancer to only prostate cancer comparing a cancer that kills many younger women (and can kill them faster) to one that kills fewer numbers of men who are closer to reaching the average life expectancy? The language should at least reflect the difficulty of making a factual statement when comparing two cancers that are very different in their prevalence, outcomes, and tumor growth rate.
Also regarding the section that suggests that frequent ejaculation may lower risk: this section starts off with a statement that says yes this is true, before it goes on to say a number of other things that seem to indicate that the theory is either not true or has not been proven in studies. The section should start by saying that there are conflicting studies and go on to weigh why that might be so.
74.109.66.152 (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of objectivity or unclear 

message: The American Cancer Society's position regarding early detection is "Research has not yet proven that the potential benefits of testing outweigh the harms of testing and treatment. The American Cancer Society believes that men should not be tested without learning about what we know and don’t know about the risks and possible benefits of testing and treatment.  Starting at age 50, (45 if African American or brother or father suffered from condition before age 65) talk to your doctor about the pros and cons of testing so you can decide if testing is the right choice for you."http://www.cancer.org/Healthy/FindCancerEarly/CancerScreeningGuidelines/american-cancer-society-guidelines-for-the-early-detection-of-cancer American Cancer Society American Cancer Society Guidelines for the early detection of cancer Cited: September 2011
The only test that can fully confirm the diagnosis of prostate cancer is a biopsy, the removal of small pieces of the prostate for microscopic examination. However, prior to a biopsy, less invasive testing can be conducted.  
According to Professor Hardev Pandha, The Prostate Project Chair of Urological Oncology at the University of Surrey's Postgraduate Medical School, a non-invasive test looking for the presence of the protein  Engrailed-2 (EN2) in the urine to be more reliable and accurate than existing tests.
"In this study, we showed that the new test was twice as good at finding prostate cancer as the standard PSA test. Only rarely did we find EN2 in the urine of men who were cancer free, so if we find EN2 we can be reasonably sure that a man has prostate cancer. EN2 was not detected in men with non-cancer disorders of the prostate such as prostatitis or benign enlargement. These conditions often cause a high PSA result, causing considerable stress for the patient and sometimes also unnecessary further tests such as prostate biopsies." http://caerleonpharmacy.cambrianalliance.co.uk/index.php?option=com_news&view=news&layout=archive&id=543 New prostate cancer twice as effective as a PSA test could be available by next year.
Wednesday, 02 March 2011 
There are also several other tests that can be used to gather more information about the prostate and the urinary tract. Digital rectal examination (DRE) may allow a doctor to detect prostate abnormalities. Cystoscopy shows the urinary tract from inside the bladder, using a thin, flexible camera tube inserted down the urethra. Transrectal ultrasonography creates a picture of the prostate using sound waves from a probe in the rectum.
Pbmaise (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Detection and Diagnosis 

message: I am trying to read about prostate cancer diagnosis, particularly staging, for a friend with prostate cancer, & every time I click on the Wikipedia site for "Prostate Cancer," the article I want pops up & is replace within one minute by this article by Maryana Pinchuk, a disguise for asking for money.  I am already a monthly donor to Wikipedia, but if this persists, I shall become a former donor.
James A Prentice
gasman1937@yahoo.com
24.155.178.141 (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like your web browser has been hijack.  When I enter "prostate cancer", I am lead directly to this article with no mention of "Maryana Pinchuk". Boghog (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browser highjacking 

message: TED.com is not an appropriate source, per WP:MEDRS. We need to use high quality sources here. Yobol (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree completely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Two editors in Teahouse disagree, and I read primary in wiki again and TED qualifies.  I will also back up the TED with journal research articles.32cllou (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tea house editors unfortunately are mistaken. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  TED.com 

message: I realize the main dispute is Yobol's removal of "overtreatment" but leaving in overdiagnosis and controversy.  Below is more true to the reference, removes the Economist stuff, removes the old findings, removes the NYT:
:The presence of prostate cancer may be indicated by symptoms, physical examination, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), or biopsy.  The United States Preventive Services Task Force in 2012 recommended against screening for prostate cancer using the prostate-specific antigen testing, noting that the test may result in “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” because "most prostate cancer is asymptomatic for life," and treatments involve risks of complications that exceed potential benefits.  The USPSTF found that “the potential benefit does not outweigh the expected harms.”  Further tests, such as CT scans and bone scans, may be performed to determine whether prostate cancer has spread.32cllou (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure changed wording to include overtreatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  We need a ref for that last sentence, any suggestions?32cllou (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all stop removing the references that are already there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 00:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed para in lead 

message: Thank you for providing better references, but in the process, important information was lost.  According to the article I cited, the incidence of prostate cancer is rapidly increasing in the developed world.  Shall I find a reference for this, or will you? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did add this content "with increasing rates in the developing world." which was supported by the ref in question Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes in 2001. Is that however still the case now 11 years later? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Great thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note to Jmh649 

message: The sections "Cause" and "Prevention" both contain a subheading "Diet." These subsections are in really bad shape. The one under "Cause" is self-contradictory - folate is said to triple the risk of prostate cancer and to reduce the risk, at both high and low levels. Very little of that section is about diet per se. Most is about dietary supplements, and absolutely none of it is conclusive. Under the heading "Cause," the only thing that can be truthfully said is that we don't know the cause. So far, all that has been published in the research literature about diet and prostate cancer are a few weak associations.
As for the Prevention section, again, all that has been published in the research literature about diet and prostate cancer are a few weak correlations, nearly all of which disappear when tried in prospective studies. No credible research recommends a vegetarian diet for prevention of prostate cancer. The only clinical professional organization position statement on the subject says that a vegetarian diet can be done safely, not that it is recommended [J Am Diet Assoc. 2003;103:748-765]. Secondary sources  point to one large study when referencing a claim that meat of any kind is associated with increased risk, but that study covered a narrow (though large) population of white Seventh Day Adventists living in California, and their dietary habits were far from representative of the general population. So-called nonvegetarians in this study consumed an average of 3 servings of beef and just over one serving combined of fish and poultry per week. They also weighed considerably more than the vegetarian group (6 kilos, 13.2 lbs) and drank more often, both coffee and alcohol. (Yes, there's a study linking coffee to prostate cancer too.) The Adventists study's authors conclude that "among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the absence of meat." [Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70(suppl):532S–8S] In fact, vegetarian diets have been studied by others as an intervention against prostate cancer [see review in Curr Opin Urol. 2009 May;19(3):263-7, also reviewed in Bratisl Lek Listy. 2008;109(10):463-6], but they didn't help prevent or mitigate prostate cancer. A few pilot studies have given researchers reason to continue studying the issue, but they can't conclude anything germane to this article.
It's taken me hours to read up on this problem. I'd prefer to let someone else handle the re-writing, if that's the consensus. Might I suggest starting with the American Cancer Society: www.cancer.org/Cancer/ProstateCancer/DetailedGuide/prostate-cancer-risk-factors
Dcs002 (talk) 08:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah what I saw was in need of help. Thanks. Well we try to start with WP:MEDDATE but that website was helpful to give me a rough idea of what a good section might look like. I took a stab at the diet section in causes. Thanks for bringing this issue to the talk page. I'll try to come back to make more progress later. Biosthmors (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow! Thank you for such a quick response! The truth is, I'm a neuroscientist with a Ph.D. in nutrition, and I find it hard to write for a broad audience without getting mired in the details and analyzing primary sources. But I'm good at spotting  problems. I know, there's a WP saying that says something about fixing it rather than complaining, but I've also got Asperger's syndrome, which also makes it difficult to write concisely. And yesterday I was diagnosed with BPH (which scared me a little), so I'm not feeling very neutral on this subject myself right now. Thanks again for helping with this! Dcs002 (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: BTW, I was looking around for secondary sources for the folate and multivitamin supplements increasing risk, and I found this review. [doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2012.01.110117 J Am Board Fam Med January-February 2012 vol. 25 no. 1 111-119] It doesn't support or refute either statement, but it might be a helpful review for working on this topic. It's available free online at [] Dcs002 (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: Another review [Esp Urol. 2011 Oct;64(8):720-34.] contains the statement "These dietary factors may act as late-stage promoters, rather than initiators, transforming a relatively harmless, latent prostatic neoplasia into a more aggressive form." This might be used to help explain why some factors seem to be associated with higher mortality among patients, yet don't appear to be associated with increased prevalence of prostate cancer (morbidity). This review shows signs of bias in favor of nutrition or nutrient intervention. It refers to "nutritional chemopreventive agents" as if they are well established when the evidence of their existence is poor, at least concerning prostate cancer. (I'm trying to be helpful with these posts without actually doing the writing...) Dcs002 (talk) 04:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet sections need help! 

message: The introduction to this article presents as settled a topic which is in fact extremely controversial, i.e., the question of prostate cancer screening and its effect on mortality.
I am far from a Wikipedia expert, but every attempt I have made to introduce balance has been immediately revised back to baseline. In point of fact, the best evidence to date demonstrate clearly that there is a mortality benefit screening, though this of course does come at the cost of overdiagnosis. This is not an opinion, is rather a statement of fact. I added citations to both primary and secondary sources supporting this and they were all deleted.
I have on three occasions attempted to insert references to guidelines which disagree with the USPSTF and in all cases they were immediately deleted.
The USPSTF did a poor job with its evidence review. The fact that they have the imprimatur of the government does not mean they are the only experts (indeed, with one exception the task force membership has no expertise whatsoever in prostate cancer). It is a major disservice to general readers that both sides of the controversy are not presented here. I realize there is a separate page devoted to the controversy, but the overall introduction to prostate cancer on the page cannot start with incorrect information without any disclaimer or rejoinder. Drcoop (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of suggestions were made on your talk page. I think you're right that something should be mentioned about the other guidelines, though I think the USPSTF just by default should be the one with the most space in the lead paragraph. Perhaps something like "Other specialty societies have publicly disagreed with the recommendations of the USPSTF" with references, and then perhaps a bit more explication either in the screening section, or on the Prostate cancer screening page (as I suggested at your talk page). If I have some time in the next few days and there is no disagreement with this approach I should be able to do so myself. I think you may also find benefit from taking a look at WP:PILLARS, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. --  [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _  23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a very unbalanced page

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497014/ does this study meet the standards for a medical article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer is:  No.  That's an in vitro primary research study.  We're looking for secondary sources to make statements about health effects in humans.  See WP:MEDRS.  Zad68 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squid Ink for Prostate Cancer 

message: is out. It might be useful. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NICE guideline 

message: What is the difference between clinical prostate cancer and regular prostate cancer?
I'm just wondering if it's wordy or verbose? Zaurus (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes just wordy and verbose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  clinical prostate cancer? 

message: I think the diagram with the caption "When normal cells are damaged beyond repair, they are eliminated by apoptosis." is very simplistic and should be removed. Firstly, it is general to all cancers so should be on the main cancer page if anywhere. But the main problem is that it is so simplistic that it adds absolutely nothing to the article, and the caption requires no illustration. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor diagram 

message: Hi, I'm from Cancer Research UK and going to add some UK stats to the epidemiology section complied from ONS, ISD Scotland, Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry as summarised on the Cancer Research UK website. Franks08 (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Epidemiology 

message: See main article on prostate. Women have prostates (surprise!) and can get prostate cancer (isn't equality grand?). 184.77.68.158 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On my talk page, I replied to the IP about common use of the term prostate. Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female prostate cancer 

message: I encountered a few of these citations while looking for reviews on 15-lipoxygenase, 15-lipoxygenase inhibitors, and eoxins (the last of which we really need an article on...).  
I normally wouldn't bother with doing all of this, but after seeing the very significant claim made by the title of this primary source and observing that neither 5-lipoxygenase nor any 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors were mentioned in this article or the management subarticle, I figured this lack of coverage really needs to be addressed. It's probably worth noting that 5-LOX inhibitors generally have very mild adverse effect profiles, some being nearly indistinguishable from placebo; so this content is really worth including in the article provided that the following clause in the article is true for the other treatments: "all treatments can have significant side effects".
In any event, here's 3 citations (2 MEDRS reviews and the primary source from above which is cited by the first MEDRS review) which cover 5-LOX inhibitors as treatments for prostate cancer.  It's probably also worth noting that these quotes include more effects of 5-LOX inhibitors on prostate cancer than just the aforementioned significantly marked/rapid apoptotic effect on human prostate cancer cells.
I'm not really comfortable with editing cancer-related topics since I lack the background knowledge to put this in context of the other text on the page, so I'm just going to leave these references+quotes here for one of you other WP:MED editors to (hopefully, or I will facepalm) summarize and include in the article. It might be worth linking 5-LOX inhibitors, which contains a list of these drugs with suitable references. 
That's my 2¢. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: it myself... so nevermind. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Have moved to the research section. Many substances have great effects in cell culture and much less benefit within people with cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compounds that produce "very rapid" and "massive [programmed cell death] in human prostate cancer cells" seems like something worth noting in the article, no? 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Prostate cancer which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://healthncare.info/prostate-cancer-survival-rates-and-life-expectancy-in-canada/
*:Triggered by \bhealthncare\.info\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Prostate cancer]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Prostate cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141204221606/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_prostate_cancer_36.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_factors_for_prostate_cancer_36.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121011224552/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121011224552/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579050.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is it based purely on a single Gleason score or some other test(s) - or on changes over time ? and Is PC either 'low-risk' or 'aggressive' or is there a 'typical' type too? - Rod57 (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have a clearer definition of aggressive prostate cancer please 

message: The Evolving Biology of Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Review of Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3. Feb 2016 eg says "Targeting the AR-signaling pathway beyond abiraterone and enzalutamide is an area of active research.[53] Novel CYP17 inhibitors such as galeterone (TOK-001) and VT-464, and AR inhibitors such as ARN-509 and ODM-201, are being tested in clinical trials. EPI-001 is a unique AR antagonist that inhibits the amino-terminus domain of the AR protein and may overcome resistance mediated by splice variants and AR mutations.[47]" - Rod57 (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New review of castration-resistant PC