Dr Glatter and Dr Samadi - Together in Forbes!

Dr Robert Glatter is a medical doctor who is a regular contributor to Forbes, a huge global print and on line portal for news and opinion.  

He started writing for Forbes in February 2012 and has been contributing on almost a weekly basis.  It was not until December 2013 that he wrote his first piece on prostate cancer entitled "Inflammation Noted In Repeat Prostate Biopsies Linked To Reduced Future Prostate Cancer Risk".  This was actually quite a well written informative piece.

He next wrote about prostate cancer on 7 March 2014.  All of a sudden, prostate cancer has become the flavour of the month with further articles on 6 April 2014, 10 April 2014, 21 April 2014, 4 June 2014 and the most recent piece on 20 September 2014.  

It seems rather odd that there is this sudden interest in prostate cancer.  He does write a lot of articles on other subject matters but the frequency of prostate cancer topics has been disproportionately higher during the course of this year.  This made me wonder as to whether there was some explanation for this.  The most glaringly obvious common binding feature about all of his articles on prostate cancer this year has been the mention of Dr David Samadi.  

Briefly, Dr Samadi is a celebrity urological surgeon who has a program on the Fox Channel called Housecall.  He cites amazing figures for prostate cancer surgery outcomes that defy the academic literature, particularly with his claims of providing a 97% cure rate from prostate cancer. He also earns a great deal of money and was the highest earning doctor in 2012 according to a New York Post investigation stating "The city’s top earner was urologist and prostate-cancer specialist Dr. David ­Samadi, whose 2012 compensation came to $7.6 million."

Okay, back to Dr Glatter.  Who is he?  I have never met him and only discovered him through reading articles on the Forbes website where my friend and colleague Dr Benjamin Davies is also a contributer. The easiest way to start is Google.  The first hit is his work at Forbes.  The second hit is his twitter account.  His bio states the following:- "Emergency Medicine Physician-Lenox Hill Hospital /Media Spokesperson/Forbes Contributor/WebMD Editor/DR 911 housecall practice" and also provides a link to a website.  

Hang on a second - Lenox Hill Hospital?  Isn't this where Dr Samadi does his work?  I don't know the relationship between Dr Glatter and Dr Samadi but if there is any conflict of interest, it should be declared on the Forbes website.  In particular, the fact that Dr Glatter works at Lennox Hill Hospital is not listed anywhere that I can find on the Forbes website. It may be all innocent but in the context of this sudden increase this year in prostate cancer articles, all of which lavishly cite Dr Samadi, raises questions on transparency.

On a final note, the most recent article from 20 September 2014 is a far cry from Dr Glatter's excellent first article on prostate cancer in December 2013 (incidentally, he does not actually mention Dr Samadi at all in this first article).  Not only does he promote the hashtag #samadichallenge but also makes ridiculous comments such as "In case of a positive diagnosis, urge men to seek Treatment immediately" - this demonstrates a lack of insight of the biology and natural history of prostate cancer.  It goes totally against the direction taken by leading urologists which is to be less aggressive in treating clinically significant prostate cancer.

Statements like "Symptoms of prostate cancer may include changes in urinary function including a burning sensation, blood in the urine or semen, frequent urination, as well as a weak or interrupted flow" only create fear and alarm amongst men with urinary symptoms.  It is uncommon for prostate cancer to cause urinary symptoms when clinically localised - any clinician would know that it is the non-cancerous condition of the prostate called benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) that causes the symptoms.  It is these symptoms that lead men to get checked by their doctors who then serendipitously diagnose their cancers.  It is not a cause effect relationship.

The hashtag #samadichallenge with a doctors name in it? Is the aim to achieve awareness about the doctor or about prostate cancer? I am happy to be instructed on this. 

And Dr Glatter, is there any relationship of any sort between yourself and Dr Samadi? If so, be transparent and declare.  If not, state that to be the case.  It is hard otherwise to not be suspicious about the sudden interest in prostate cancer articles where Dr Samadi comes across to me as being featured expert in each of them..

Men with High Gleason Score Prostate Cancer should be given honest appraisals and expectations of outcomes from treatment

Men with a Gleason score 8-10 cancers have a significant chance of not being cured by radical prostatectomy.  Only in very exceptional circumstances would a man with a Gleason score 8-10 cancer be offered surgery if extent of disease scans (typically scans such as a bone scan and CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis) show evidence of spread to other organs.  

The vast majority of men with Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer are offered surgery because there is no objective sign of cancer spread on scans and provided other factors such as age and concurrent medical problems are not likely to be an issue.  The big BUT is that if such scans fail to show signs of spread, it does not mean that spread has not occurred.  We know for a significant number (at least 30-50%) will have already had microscopic spread that is simply beyond the resolution of the scans to detect.  In other words, let’s say that some cancer cells from the prostate gland have managed to enter into blood vessels or lymphatic vessels and travel all the way to either the bones or lymph glands respectively. Remember that tiny deposits less than a millimetre is size would have no chance of being seen by a scan.  Before operating on such men, we need to be honest with them about this possibility.  They need to recognise that even if we are to successfully remove the prostate and have the prostate specimen margins free of cancer, it does not mean that they have necessarily been cured.  It is simply one of a number of hurdles that have been jumped over.

Having a Gleason score 8-10 prostate cancer is bad enought but if we look at men who have Gleason score 10 cancer in particular, we would regard these men as having a very high (not just high) risk of existing microscopic spread.  When these men undergo radical prostatectomy, a typical expectation is that less than 40% will be alive in 10 years without having signs of detectable spread of the cancer.  Even fewer will be alive with signs of cancer having returned as evidenced by their PSA blood test levels. In other words, most men with Gleason score 10 cancer will not be able to be cured.  This of course does not mean that these men should not be offered treatment with curative intent but it is an indication that appropriate counselling be offered and that men not be given false expectations about their prognosis.  It would be brave to suggest to such men that after surgery for a Gleason score 10 cancer, that they had ‘beaten it’ just because the surgical specimen showed that the excision margins did not have cancer at the edges (also known as positive surgical margins).  Another consideration is that these men who have arguable the worst prognosis, should be offered the opportunity to participate in clinical trials give them access to additional promising treatments that could offer them the best hope of overcoming these cancers. In my opinion, this is less likely to be offered in the setting of treatment by commercially driven surgeons.

There is more to treatment decision making processes than what the Gleason score is found to be on prostate biopsies. This blog piece attempts to show just one aspect of how we consider how we embark upon offering the best for our patients. 

The intention was not to make this blog piece sound like an argument against offering men with the most aggressive prostate cancers any treatment.  I regularly offer men with clinically localised 'high risk' prostate cancer treatment with curative intent.  In spite of our recognition that many will experience signs of failure to cure the disease, treatment offers these men their best chance.  Recent randomised control trial data shows that there is increasing evidence that treatment for this particular group of men makes a clinically relevant impact upon their survival.   

On a final note, I draw attention to a tweet from Dr David Samadi who is a 'celebrity' urologist who claims cure rates of 97% from prostate cancer surgery - he indicates that he has a patient who had just recently undergone surgery who had now ‘beaten the disease’ and is celebrating. You make up your own mind whether the patient has been given realist expectations on what the future holds for his cancer.  When the PSA starts rising, will Dr Samadi look after him now that the surgery is done, or simply refer him to another specialist (medical or radiation oncologist) to manage something that is no longer for him to look after? I do not know the answers to these questions but leave it in your mind to decide.