Hello again,
The question is a tough one because of the complexities of practice patterns that impact the reported distribution of the disease (I think the disease distribution for prostate cancer is the most confusing).
In general it is believed that asymptomatic men (which would mean without any symptoms referable to the prostate, and indirectly probably have a smaller prostate size) would also harbor prostate cancer as they age. About a third of such men would, but majority may remain without symptoms and die of other things such as old age. Put another way, there isn’t a clear method by which we could estimate the risk of getting a prostate cancer diagnosis in this group of men which we are trying to compare with men who have a larger prostate.
Men who have larger prostates and have symptoms would be more likely to get tested. With more advanced sampling techniques, the chances of receiving a cancer diagnosis seems much more common than it was in the past. Hence, while the overall risk may not really be different, men with larger prostates tend to be the only ones who get tested. So it appears that they seem to get more cancer.
Thanks so much.
Is an eventual diagnosis of prostate cancer more likely
with a history of a large prostate?
Hi,
The information is unlikely to be available for a couple of reasons. One is that the procedure is fairly new so there is no large data to sift through. The other is that BPH is so common, it would be very difficult to isolate the impact of any specific intervention, add to that the fact that it is usually indicated for men who have enlarged prostates to begin with. Discuss your concerns with your doctor. If it is not your personality to sign up for the new, there are alternative techniques that would probably be more suitable to your degree of risk acceptance. Stay positive.