But, as with many conditions, survival rates from prostate cancer are not the same across the world and this fact should provide us with data which will permit us to improve our treatment options.



In a recent study data was examined on nearly 117,000 men suffering from prostate cancer (including some 108,000 white men and nearly 9,000 Asians drawn from the six largest Asian ethnicities - , Japanese, Chinese, South Asian, Filipino, Korean and Vietnamese). The study examined prognostic factors and survival rates amongst these men.

Amongst the many findings from the study it was found that the risk profile for Asian men was worse than that for white men, with Asian men being more likely to suffer from advanced prostate cancer by the time of diagnosis and of being treated with a variety of non-curative therapies. But, the study also found that the survival rates amongst Asian men were either the same as or better than the rates for white men.

These results were somewhat surprising when we note that the average age at which most Asian men are diagnosed with prostate cancer is significantly higher than that for white men and that their cancers are frequently further advanced, which should clearly suggest a lower survival rate.

When the figures were studied in more detail however it was found that there was a marked variation between different groups of Asian men. For example, Japanese-American men were thirty-four percent less likely to die from prostate cancer, while men from South Asia (including, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan) were forty percent more likely to die from prostate cancer.

So what does this mean? Unfortunately the answer would seem to be very little. These variations are clearly large enough to be significant, but the wide variation between several broadly similar groups means that it is virtually impossible to draw any concrete conclusions. Without doubt there are a number of things, like diet, exercise and genetics, which are a factor but several of the findings appear to be almost contradictory.

The result is that, a study which it was believed would identify differences across ethic groups which would help us to improve prostate cancer treatment has in fact produced more questions that it has answered. Actually, apart from underlining the dangers of drawing conclusions from too broad a group, as seen in the difference in the figures for Asian men in general and men from just South Asia, the study has shown that the differences were larger than most people had believed and thus suggest that these variations could indeed be more significant than previously believed.

As things stand, this study does not take us any further forward but it has at least highlighted the need for more investigation which will hopefully provide us with better data and permit us to take advantage of the better survival rates in many Asian groups in designing treatment plans for prostate cancer.