[JohnJamesRambo]

I’m so confused though, because based on my reading of it, it seems like the prostate screening thing where yes it might find cancer but no it won’t prevent deaths, so it might be better to just not know/do invasive procedures and treatment for it.

Is that the wrong conclusion to reach from the data?

[bitcurious]

You could think of screening as a bet on anti-cancer drugs getting better over the next N years.

[PaulHoule]

Prostate cancer is different from colon cancer.

In the case of colon cancer detected in a colonoscopy they can snip it out right there without a lot of effort, risk or lost function. Surgery on the prostate is likely to cause all sorts of problems for men.

[hef19898]

And not having surgery for it can mean death. Steve Jobs, even it wasn't prostate cancer, should serve as good example of how not to tackle it. Or at least to show what not tackeling it looks like, because feel free to do what you want, but be aware of the consequences.

[SoftTalker]

Jobs had pancreatic cancer. His holistic approach to dealing with it notwithstanding, that diagnosis is usually a death sentence no matter what you do.

[hef19898]

Generally speaking, yes. Practically, Jobs cancer was of the rare but kind of treatable kind. Unless, of course, you forgo surgery, chemo and radio therapy.

Again, not blaming Jobs for his decisions, cancer is a scary thing. Just pointing out the benefit of eering on the side of aggressiveness when it comes to treatment.

[altdataseller]

As far as I know, he had a type of (neuroendocrine?) pancreatic cancer that had a much better prognosis than other types.

[lupire]

Or you could wait for better drugs before getting an invasive screening.