A recent study suggests that enhancing the diets of prostate cancer patients may offer an alternative to surgery, according to experts. The trial involved providing patients with supplements containing vegetables and beneficial bacteria, resulting in a slowdown of a key prostate cancer indicator in the blood. This approach is seen as a potential way to help patients cope with the anxiety of living with slow-growing tumors that may not pose a threat.
Prostate cancer patients often undergo regular tests to measure prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, which can indicate tumor development. In a trial conducted by Bedfordshire University, men with slow-growing tumors were given a supplement comprising ingredients like broccoli, turmeric, pomegranate, green tea, ginger, and cranberry. Additionally, some participants received a probiotic supplement containing lactobacillus, known for its positive effects on health.
The results showed a significant slowing of PSA progression in both groups, with the group receiving the probiotic supplement experiencing even greater benefits. This finding suggests that dietary enhancements, especially for patients with low-risk tumors under active surveillance by the NHS, could be beneficial in managing the condition without aggressive treatments.
Professor Robert Thomas, the lead author of the study and a consultant clinical oncologist, highlighted the importance of dietary interventions in keeping men on active surveillance, potentially reducing the need for invasive procedures. He emphasized the need for longer-term follow-up to assess the impact of these supplements on reducing the necessity for major interventions such as surgery or radiotherapy.
While prostate cancer screening for high-risk individuals was rejected by UK regulators last year due to concerns of overdiagnosis, routine PSA testing is not commonly offered by the NHS unless symptoms suggestive of prostate cancer are present. Despite some controversies, experts like Sir Chris Hoy advocate for broader screening, especially for men with a family history of the disease or those at higher risk.
The rejection of widespread screening was based on data showing that many men struggle with the uncertainty of monitoring prostate cancer and often opt for treatment even when not necessary. This highlights the challenge of balancing the risks and benefits of early detection and treatment decisions for prostate cancer patients.
As more men with low-risk prostate cancer choose treatment over active surveillance, there is a growing concern about unnecessary interventions. Professor Freddie Hamdy, a member of the screening committee, explained how the fear of disease progression often drives patients to opt for treatment prematurely, leading to potentially avoidable surgeries.
In conclusion, while dietary interventions show promise in managing prostate cancer, the debate over screening and treatment decisions continues, reflecting the complex nature of balancing proactive health measures with the risks of overtreatment.