John Bentley
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2004
- Messages
- 448
John
My alternative interpretation would be to say that prostatic Ca that manages to develop in the absence of androgen support would, by definition, be nastier disease because the cells are proliferating without one of their major controls on development. So I would suspect that a referral centre receiving nastier cases would be likely to have castrates over-represented in that cohort.
The same is true of perianal masses in the castrate and the bitch- more uncommon than in entire males but nasty when it occurs.
To answer the question you would need a better study of the true incidences in the general population not a referral cohort already showing bad disease before you could say that the casrtates actually get more Ca per 100,000 dogs.
Yes, I have that same interpretation. As I remember it, prostatic cancer was much more common in the un-neutered male, but when it did occur in the neutered male, it was much more likely to be malignant. However, at our referral center at Auburn University, we saw many more un-neutered males than otherwise. Most of the prostatic biopsies I performed in those dogs showed cancer, but I never worked up any statistics myself.
Thanks for prodding my recalcitrant engrams, they are starting to calcify I think.