Talk:Benign prostatic hyperplasia

I have created this discussion for people who have BPH to share their experiences with this condition. For those who contribute, there is a template for your history with BPH -- see Personal History Template below. Contributors to this discussion may enhance the layout and scope of the discussion and/or contribute his personal experience with BPH. I have started the discussion with my own experience using "BPH#1" as my identifier.

• Above comment by 68.192.215.132; rest of comment was such a personal experience, removed as superfluous per WP:REFACTOR. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaking Wikipedia for a discussion board. Please start a blog, but don't use this page for discussions, unless they pertain directly to the article. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Age and occurance

Can DPH occur in younger males? This article claims that it never does. Peoplesunionpro 01:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• It doesn't say that, it just refers to the enlargement in middle-aged and elderly men. It *can* occur in younger men, but it is rare. In younger men, the same symptoms can occur, but they tend to be due to dysfunction of the bladder neck rather than obstruction from prostatic hypertrophy. Jfbcubed 23:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

BPH - Hyperplasia or Hypertrophy

It is, technically speaking, a hyperplastic process rather than hypertrophic, so I have amended it as such. Even as a urologist, though, I often call it "Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy". Old habits die hard... Jfbcubed 21:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Western vs. Rural Lifestyle

Anonymous, 06:24, 10 November, 2006 (UTC)

Please explain and cite this quote located under the Etiology heading, "This is confirmed by research in China showing that men in rural areas have very low rates of clinical BPH, while men living in cities adopting a western lifestyle have a skyrocketing incidence of this condition, though it is still below rates seen in the West.".

What exactly are the differences of western and rural lifestyles pertaining to this article? This implies that BPH can be prevented through a lifestyle change but no explanation of exactly which changes are needed. If true, it is interesting and should be expanded.

• I'd never heard the urban / rural distinction before. It is without doubt true that some Eastern races have a lower incidence of BPH. There is a good chart depicting rates by age and geography in Campbells Urology. If you need it, I'll dig out the references. Jfbcubed 20:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Causes

What about mentioning the causes? Especially in younger males (even though it's rare).

• The causeology is not exactly known. There are factors important in the causation, and factors important in its prevention, but this is not like heart disease... Jfbcubed 00:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Symptoms

I have re-written the symptoms section. Any comments are welcomed. I intend to edit the entire article, and will appreciate any help.--Derwig 18:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Slight change to the statement that BPH is necessarily progressive. It isn't. This was pretty well demonstrated by the Ball, et al.'s findings (British Journal of Urology 1981; 53:613-6). The study is not without weaknesses, but they found that there was very little evidence of symptomatic or urodynamic deterioration in untreated men over 5 years. Jfbcubed 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The concept of BPH progression has changed significantly since the 1981 study, as was demonstrated in studies like the MTOPS (added to the references, currently #3). Nevertheless, as BPH is not always progressive in all patients, I agree with your edit.

--Derwig 17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree that is a compelling point. Technically there is a difference between BPH and lower urinary tract symptoms, however (Hald's rings and all that); also "progression" was defined differently in the two studies we are talking about. Most of those that progressed in MTOPS were deterioration in AUA scores - the AUA didn't publish their scoring system until 11 years after Bristol group (Ball, et al). Progression in the Bristol paper was surgical intervention (there was no accepted medical treatment in those days), acute retention, or a "significant" deterioration in urodynamic variables. I accept these are cruder tests and may explain the different "progression" rates seen in the two studies. My point remains though that both studies did have cohorts that did not progress. In fact, the Bristol paper showed a sizeable number improved with no treatment (I believe - I have neither paper to hand - about 30% improved with conservative management).

• • To slightly contradict myself however, and for completeness, the Olmsted County paper (Jacobsen, et al., Journal of Urology 1996: 155; 595-600) did show widespread symptomatic progression before patient presentation to a physician. The evidence that this progression continues in the post-presentation period is less strong, although it is difficult to explain why it wouldn't. (Sorry for being so verbose) Jfbcubed 18:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)