Abstract
Since the introduction of PSA testing, treatment options for clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa) have proliferated. Prostate surgery, hormonal therapy and radiation therapy have rapidly grown in technique and delivery. Deferred intervention in the form of active surveillance or watchful waiting has been widely adopted, while focal therapies using various energy techniques are gaining data as potential alternatives to radical treatment. The medical literature dedicated to PCa treatment has exploded over this period, although an absence of highquality evidence supporting one method over another is apparent [1,2]. Consequently, healthcare workers and patients have been inundated with PCa literature, but with little guidance on comparative effectiveness and harms of treatment. This sheer volume of research raises concerns over its true value in improving the treatment and prevention of disease. Is such literature actually beneficial to medical progress, or does it amount to hyperbole and medical hype?
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
