Jay Hancock's articles about Chesapeake Urology Associates are misleading and inaccurate ("Urologists got machine; cancer treatments soared," Jan. 15). My husband is a patient there, and receives excellent care. When he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he was given several options, including getting a second opinion outside of the practice. It was recommended that he explore the options and then decide what course of action he wanted to take.
Radioactive seeds were not recommended because they would not reach and eradicate the entire cancer area. Surgery, with its permanent risks, was not a good solution due to his medical issues. He decided on Chesapeake Urology for IMRT, and he is thankful he did. At no time was he steered toward Chesapeake Urology for treatment. He missed no work during treatment, and he continues on with his life.
Mr. Hancock does not point out that less than 25 percent of patients diagnosed with cancer at Chesapeake Urology each year are treated at their center with IMRT. He also does not point out that the cost of IMRT at Chesapeake Urology is 60 percent cheaper than in a hospital-based system.
I'm wondering where Mr. Hancock gets his medical degree to recommend certain types of treatment for patients, and to lambaste an excellent practice. Before he writes, he needs to thoroughly research.
A registered nurse and wife of a prostate cancer survivor