A wide and systematic study has been conducted in order to trace the origins of this type of cancer. The study also includes the current statistics of prostate cancer. It has been found out that genetics and the environment or lifestyle of a person is the essential factors that trigger this form of cancer to occur. It also very alarming to discover that even young adults could also be the victims of such type of cancer.

Since prostate cancer have already managed to cause so much pain to its victims, several organizations are calling the attention of the public to support their campaigns against the negative effects of this kind of cancer. These organizations are mainly composed of people who managed to survive from such disease. Their main goal is to inform and convince the public about the harmful effects of this strain of cancer. They are also encouraging the public to be more responsible with their health. They often advised their members to undergo several medical check-ups in order for their doctors to monitor their current condition.

According to medical experts, there is a greater chance to treat or cure cancer during its early stages of development. There is also a greater possibility that the patient will survive from this type of disease if the doctors have immediately diagnosed his current condition and before it has reached the most complicated stage of cancer which is stage four. There are tons of ways on how you can prevent yourself from this type of disease. One of the finest ways to deal with cancer is to accept the fact that you have this kind of disease. It is better to embrace the truth and seek for a solution than to ignore it.

However there are also some individuals who are not convinced with the negative effects of this type of cancer. They are also reluctant with the idea that they can be diagnosed with such type of cancer if they will not take good care of their health. They also refuse to accept the idea of changing their lifestyle into a healthier one to prevent them from having prostate cancer. It is already very difficult for them to change their lifestyle because they can no longer control and limit themselves from their usual ways of living.

Almost exactly a year ago, I wrote about the emergence of cryoablation as a treatment for prostate cancer (Cryoablation and Prostate Cancer). Cryoablation uses slender probes to freeze tumors and surrounding normal tissue, and has been proposed as an alternative to surgery or radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer. In July of 2008, I noted that, in most respects, cryoablation appeared to compare favorably with surgery and radiation therapy, although the incidence of impotence appeared to be much higher with cryoablation than with standard prostate cancer treatments. I also noted, at the time, that there was no prospective, randomized clinical research data available with which to make a credible and direct comparison between cryoablation and other more established treatments for prostate cancer. Now, a new prospective, randomized clinical research trial comparing cryoablation with radiation therapy has reported its early results in the journal Cancer.

In this Canadian study, 244 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer localized to the prostate gland were randomly assigned to undergo either standard external beam radiation treatment or cyroablation. These volunteers with prostate cancer were then followed for 3 years after completing their treatment. Because it is still too early to draw conclusions about cancer recurrence and survival in this group of prostate cancer patients, this preliminary report addresses quality-of-life issues related to these two forms of cancer therapy.

The men who underwent cryoablation reported more difficulties with urination than the men who were treated with radiation early after treatment, although these symptoms resolved over time. The cryotherapy group also reported significantly higher rates of long-term impotence when compared with the men who received radiation therapy. In fact, 3 years after treatment, there was a 13 percent greater incidence of moderate-to-severe sexual dysfunction among the cryotherapy group of men when compared to the radiation therapy group.

The preliminary results of this prospective, randomized clinical research trial suggest that the main long-term quality-of-life difference between cryotherapy and radiation therapy is a significantly greater incidence of long-term sexual dysfunction following cryotherapy.

As I concluded in my last update of cryotherapy for prostate cancer treatment, one year ago, the long-term benefits and risks of this form of treatment are not fully understood at this time, as we lack mature long-term prospective, randomized clinical research data with which to make prudent decisions about this treatment modality. Aside from a higher incidence of sexual dysfunction following cryotherapy, it is still too soon to tell if the long-term survival outcomes with cryotherapy will compare favorably with radiation therapy and surgery. Therefore, for now, I can only recommend cryotherapy for prostate cancer if it is performed within an approved clinical research trial. Stay tuned for further updates on this topic as they become available.