New report puts the patient perspective on the issue

Should low-risk prostate growths, classified as Gleason 6 or ISUP 1, be re-classified as non-cancerous? The last decade has seen the issue vigorously debated, with some urologists saying that identifying these lesions, which are unlikely to kill, as cancers can adversely affect patient decision-making – and cause overtreatment in some cases.

A new paper written by Europa Uomo’s Erik Briers captures the arguments for and against, based on contributions to a debate at last year’s PROSCA interdisciplinary meeting. Those at the debate were clear: 82% of those present voted in favour of still calling ISUP-1 cancer.

Erik Briers, Europa Uomo’s Vice Chairman, provides a patient perspective at the debate, and said categorically that “low grade prostate cancer remains cancer”.

“There is no need for a new name,” he says.

He says there is no doubt that, pathologically speaking, ISUP-1 exhibits all the morphological and molecular characteristics of cancer. And there have clearly been cases where men have died of ISUP-1 cancers, which can evolve into higher grades and metastasise.

He acknowledges that it can be difficult for doctors to explain to patients that an ISUP-1 cancer does not need immediate treatment and should instead be actively monitored. “However, we men must be brave enough to accept that there is such a thing as active surveillance, where these cancers are picked up and only treated curatively if they become dangerous after months or years.”

You can read Erik Briers’ full paper here.