What is the survival rate of Joe Biden's ‘aggressive' prostate cancer after high Gleason score
Former US President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with a serious type of prostate cancer, his office announced on the evening of Sunday (May 18). The 82-year-old was seen last week by doctors after experiencing urinary symptoms, and a prostate nodule was found.
Biden was diagnosed with prostate cancer on Friday (May 16) with the cancer cells having spread to the bone, and he is currently considering his treatment options. His office described Biden's form of cancer as 'aggressive'.
"While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management," his office said. "The President and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians."
The former President was given a Gleason score of nine, which suggests his cancer is among the most severe.
But as Biden's health makes headlines, along with his dangerously high Gleason score, questions are rising on what exactly a Gleason score is, and what it measures.
Here's everything you need to know about the Gleason scoring system.
What is the Gleason score?
Gleason scores are a system of grading the severity of prostate cancers, explains Cleveland Clinic.
When a patient has prostate cancer, medical pathologists study their tissue samples under a microscope, and determine how abnormal the cells are, and how fast they're likely to grow.
Gleason scores range from six, which is a low-grade cancer, to 10, a high-grade and more aggressive prostate cancer.
Low grade prostate cancer grows more slowly than high-grade cancer, which is more likely to spread to other parts of the body, such as Biden's, which has spread to his bones.
Joe Biden's Gleason score of nine indicates that he has a severe and spreading form of prostate cancer.
What is the survival rate of a high Gleason score?
Higher Gleason scores of nine or 10 generally have a lower survival rate than scores of six or seven.
A study published in European Urology Oncology analysed the survival rates of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Researchers analysed data from 620 patients with various Gleason scores, and it was found that 43 per cent of men with a Gleason score of nine or 10 died of prostate cancer.
Of all men with a Gleason score of nine or 10, 34 per cent were alive at the end of the study, which followed up on patients five and 10 years after their diagnoses.
While 43 per cent died of prostate cancer, 23 per cent died of other causes.
According to AJMC, Biden's Gleason nine cancer which has already spread has a five-year survival rate of 37 per cent, which is significantly lower than early-stage detection.
The former US President's health has been widely discussed and speculated since he was elected in 2020.
And he faced several health problems during his time in office.
In February 2023, Biden had a skin lesion removed from his chest that was a basal cell carcinoma, a common form of skin cancer.
And in November 2021, he had a polyp removed from his colon that was a benign, but potentially pre-cancerous lesion.
Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community!
Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today.
You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland.
No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team.
All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in!
If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'.
We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like.
To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
4 hours ago
- The Guardian
Experts condemn NIH director's defense of cut to vaccine research
When the director of the National Institutes of Health this week said funding for the development of mRNA vaccines – the backbone of Covid vaccines – was being wound down because they had failed to 'earn public trust', it was met, publicly and privately, with exasperated incredulity. Critics say few have done more than Jay Bhattacharya and other top health officials in the Trump administration to sow doubts about public health institutions and, by extension, the value of the vaccines that saved millions of lives around the world. 'It is astounding that Bhattacharya has the audacity to claim to know that Biden-era policies are responsible for distrust of mRNA vaccines, when he and his associates have done so much to diminish the appreciation of these important medical accomplishments,' Jeremy Berg, the former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH, said in a statement to the Guardian. Bhattacharya's comments appeared in an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he defended a recent announcement by the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is anti-vaccine, to terminate $500m in federal funding for mRNA vaccine research, which Kennedy justified by claiming he had 'reviewed the science'. Experts say the evidence Kennedy reviewed did not support ending the research. While the mRNA platform was 'promising' and could potentially deliver breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer and other diseases, Bhattacharya said it had failed the test of use for a public health emergency because it had not earned public trust. 'No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission,' he wrote. But the approach, experts say, is wrongheaded. It also seemed to downplay an important point: namely that the Covid vaccines had ultimately succeeded in stopping symptomatic and severe disease, even if they had not stopped infections. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said the question was not whether the vaccines had gained public trust, but whether they worked and were safe. To which, he said, the answer was 'clearly yes'. 'The vaccine isn't running for public office. We don't need to vote to determine whether to use it. We need to do a better job explaining the science that supports the use of the vaccine,' Offit said. Bhattacharya's criticism was aimed squarely at the Biden administration, even though the Covid vaccines were developed under Operation Warp Speed during the first Trump administration, a feat the president himself has touted as a major accomplishment. Bhattacharya said the Biden administration 'did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines' and 'did not properly acknowledge Americans' growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness'. Doctors and scientists interviewed by the Guardian challenged that narrative. Jonathan Howard, a physician whose forthcoming book, Everyone Else Is Lying to You, examines how the medical establishment normalized 'quackery' during the Covid pandemic and undermined public health, says Bhattacharya was 'omnipresent' in the media during the early stage of the pandemic, publishing articles that generally opposed measures that tried to limit Covid. Bhattacharya also wrongly said in March 2020 that estimates about Covid's fatality rate 'may be too high by orders of magnitude'. The NIH head's approach to the vaccines, Howard has alleged in his new book, was to spread 'disinformation'. 'Dr Bhattacharya spent years treating rare, mild, temporary vaccine side-effects as a fate worse than death from Covid. It is galling for him to [now] use 'mistrust' as a pretext to destroy an entire field of scientific research,' he said. Bhattacharya has claimed that he was the victim of censorship during the pandemic and has defended what he has called his dissenting views. Joshua Weitz, a professor of biology at the University of Maryland and author of Asymptomatic, about how asymptomatic transmission drove Covid's global spread, said Bhattacharya's arguments failed to acknowledge the role the current leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-vaccine influencers had in undermining public trust. 'The success of vaccination campaigns depends both on how effective vaccines are against disease and how many individuals get vaccinated in a timely fashion,' Weitz said. 'The op-ed sows doubt regarding the number of lives saved due to Covid vaccines, favoring a recent study that claims about 2.5 million lives were saved globally rather than 10 million or more as estimated elsewhere. Even the low estimate of about 2.5 million lives saved speaks to the ability of these vaccines to make a massive public health difference at scale.' The NIH did not respond to a request for comment. Bhattacharya's op-ed was concerning to some experts who saw it as a sign that the NIH is ratcheting up of rhetoric against mRNA vaccines as part of a worrying pattern. Before his confirmation as health secretary, Kennedy had already expressed reservations about mRNA vaccine technology. Once he was confirmed, researchers were reportedly advised to scrub references to mRNA vaccine technology from grant applications. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services cancelled $776m in contracts with Moderna to develop, test, and license vaccines for flu subtypes that could trigger future pandemics, and then came Kennedy's decision to cut research development on mRNA vaccines. The op-ed this week was another cause for panic. 'The fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg,' said Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University. Coller said he found the op-ed to be both shocking and disappointing, in part because the data around the Covid vaccines was 'probably some of the most convincing data for any vaccination program that we've ever had in human history', from its 95% efficacy rate in two FDA trials. 'Can we continue to sustain the promise of this breakthrough technology in this climate? It does not take a lot of foresight to see that this pattern will probably manifest into policy changes.'
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Experts condemn NIH director's defense of cut to vaccine research
When the director of the National Institutes of Health this week said funding for the development of mRNA vaccines – the backbone of Covid vaccines – was being wound down because they had failed to 'earn public trust', it was met, publicly and privately, with exasperated incredulity. Critics say few have done more than Jay Bhattacharya and other top health officials in the Trump administration to sow doubts about public health institutions and, by extension, the value of the vaccines that saved millions of lives around the world. 'It is astounding that Bhattacharya has the audacity to claim to know that Biden-era policies are responsible for distrust of mRNA vaccines, when he and his associates have done so much to diminish the appreciation of these important medical accomplishments,' Jeremy Berg, the former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the NIH, said in a statement to the Guardian. Bhattacharya's comments appeared in an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he defended a recent announcement by the health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, who is anti-vaccine, to terminate $500m in federal funding for mRNA vaccine research, which Kennedy justified by claiming he had 'reviewed the science'. Experts say the evidence Kennedy reviewed did not support ending the research. While the mRNA platform was 'promising' and could potentially deliver breakthroughs in the treatment of cancer and other diseases, Bhattacharya said it had failed the test of use for a public health emergency because it had not earned public trust. 'No matter how elegant the science, a platform that lacks credibility among the people it seeks to protect cannot fulfill its public health mission,' he wrote. But the approach, experts say, is wrongheaded. It also seemed to downplay an important point: namely that the Covid vaccines had ultimately succeeded in stopping symptomatic and severe disease, even if they had not stopped infections. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said the question was not whether the vaccines had gained public trust, but whether they worked and were safe. To which, he said, the answer was 'clearly yes'. 'The vaccine isn't running for public office. We don't need to vote to determine whether to use it. We need to do a better job explaining the science that supports the use of the vaccine,' Offit said. Bhattacharya's criticism was aimed squarely at the Biden administration, even though the Covid vaccines were developed under Operation Warp Speed during the first Trump administration, a feat the president himself has touted as a major accomplishment. Bhattacharya said the Biden administration 'did not manage public trust in the coronavirus vaccines' and 'did not properly acknowledge Americans' growing concerns regarding safety and effectiveness'. Doctors and scientists interviewed by the Guardian challenged that narrative. Jonathan Howard, a physician whose forthcoming book, Everyone Else Is Lying to You, examines how the medical establishment normalized 'quackery' during the Covid pandemic and undermined public health, says Bhattacharya was 'omnipresent' in the media during the early stage of the pandemic, publishing articles that generally opposed measures that tried to limit Covid. Bhattacharya also wrongly said in March 2020 that estimates about Covid's fatality rate 'may be too high by orders of magnitude'. The NIH head's approach to the vaccines, Howard has alleged in his new book, was to spread 'disinformation'. 'Dr Bhattacharya spent years treating rare, mild, temporary vaccine side-effects as a fate worse than death from Covid. It is galling for him to [now] use 'mistrust' as a pretext to destroy an entire field of scientific research,' he said. Bhattacharya has claimed that he was the victim of censorship during the pandemic and has defended what he has called his dissenting views. Joshua Weitz, a professor of biology at the University of Maryland and author of Asymptomatic, about how asymptomatic transmission drove Covid's global spread, said Bhattacharya's arguments failed to acknowledge the role the current leadership of the Department of Health and Human Services and anti-vaccine influencers had in undermining public trust. 'The success of vaccination campaigns depends both on how effective vaccines are against disease and how many individuals get vaccinated in a timely fashion,' Weitz said. 'The op-ed sows doubt regarding the number of lives saved due to Covid vaccines, favoring a recent study that claims about 2.5 million lives were saved globally rather than 10 million or more as estimated elsewhere. Even the low estimate of about 2.5 million lives saved speaks to the ability of these vaccines to make a massive public health difference at scale.' The NIH did not respond to a request for comment. Bhattacharya's op-ed was concerning to some experts who saw it as a sign that the NIH is ratcheting up of rhetoric against mRNA vaccines as part of a worrying pattern. Before his confirmation as health secretary, Kennedy had already expressed reservations about mRNA vaccine technology. Once he was confirmed, researchers were reportedly advised to scrub references to mRNA vaccine technology from grant applications. In May, the Department of Health and Human Services cancelled $776m in contracts with Moderna to develop, test, and license vaccines for flu subtypes that could trigger future pandemics, and then came Kennedy's decision to cut research development on mRNA vaccines. The op-ed this week was another cause for panic. 'The fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg,' said Jeff Coller, a professor of RNA biology and therapeutics at Johns Hopkins University. Coller said he found the op-ed to be both shocking and disappointing, in part because the data around the Covid vaccines was 'probably some of the most convincing data for any vaccination program that we've ever had in human history', from its 95% efficacy rate in two FDA trials. 'Can we continue to sustain the promise of this breakthrough technology in this climate? It does not take a lot of foresight to see that this pattern will probably manifest into policy changes.'
New Statesman
4 days ago
- New Statesman
Gaza's children need Britain's support now
RAFAH, GAZA - MARCH 29: A child runs among debris following Israeli air strikes on March 29, 2024 in Rafah, Gaza. Despite warnings from US President Biden, Israeli forces have targeted the city of Rafah which is currently home to an estimated million Palestinian refugees. According to Gaza's Ministry of Health, more than 32,000 Palestinians have been killed, and over 74,000 wounded in Israel's ongoing bombardment of Gaza starting on October 7. (Photo by) After months of moral contortions, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said that his government would recognise a Palestinian state sometime within this parliament. Not today, not tomorrow, but soon, well, soon-ish. The announcement notably came with a heavy dose of 'unless Israel' – grounding the position of the UK firmly in the realm of theory. But the timing of this rhetorical pivot is not coincidental. It follows a second, more immediate shift: the UK's announcement that it will evacuate over 100 critically ill and injured Palestinian children from Gaza to receive NHS treatment. A move campaigners, medics and charities such as ours have long demanded and one that arrives months – indeed, years, too late. Still, after months in which Gaza's children suffered under a siege in which starvation was strategy not side effect – whilst the British government clung to the safety of ambiguity – this feels like movement. Movement graded on a curve set by years of inaction. For Gaza's children, many of whom my colleagues at Children Not Numbers have been treating, it's less a breakthrough and more an indication that Britain may potentially, maybe, consider a late delivery on a stack of broken promises. As the situation begins to spiral out of control, Gaza's children are making a stand. S and S are among three critically ill children at the centre of a potential landmark legal challenge against the UK government. The two siblings are suffering from cystinosis – a rare, progressive disorder that severely damages kidney function. Amidst Israel's all out assault on healthcare facilities, the medication they urgently need is entirely unavailable in Gaza; without it, both face complete renal failure. Their case demonstrates that the government's rationale for denying medical evacuations – a preference for supporting treatment on the ground, is no longer tenable. Last month, with the support of Children Not Numbers, the siblings decided to act. The children initiated legal proceedings, sending a pre-action letter to the Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary. This marks the first formal attempt to hold the British state accountable for failing to establish a medical evacuation pathway for children in Gaza. The letter argues that ministers have breached their Tameside duty of inquiry – a legal requirement to properly inform themselves before making decisions – by failing to seriously assess the overwhelming evidence of medical necessity and humanitarian urgency before choosing inaction. Like so many others facing down a complex life-threatening condition, both brothers are malnourished. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Since the blockade began in mid-March 2025, we've recorded a 30 per cent increase in the death rate amongst children under our care. Alongside this devastating development, starvation is spreading like wildfire through the besieged enclave, leading to 70 per cent of the children we treat now being at risk of malnutrition. The crippling hunger gripping Gaza's children means the UK cannot afford to wait a moment longer. The shame is in the contrast: while the UK moved at lightning pace to welcome Ukrainian medical evacuees in 2022, Gaza's children have been met with bureaucratic fog and political equivocation. This disparity is now under legal scrutiny – the law, unlike politics, has a low tolerance for hypocrisy. If in Starmer's statehood plans, peace, even an unjust peace, can delay recognition, the legal challenge brought by the three children suggests the inverse might also be true: that properly filed paperwork can force principle to the surface. Questions abound as to the precise details of the proposed pathway and the question of recognition is likewise, up in the air. Officials say they'll assess 'progress' in September, which is Westminster-speak for: the red lines are written in pencil. One thing is certain, the ministerial press releases and soundbites that have long been failing Gaza's children are now failing the Prime Minister. Instagram humanitarianism will no longer suffice amidst the mounting legal challenges and hefty political premium on inaction. With Gaza's hospitals in ruins and its children starving on camera, the dam is cracking. The moral ambiguity that once cloaked our policy in the fine mist of 'complexity' is evaporating under the glare of mass civilian suffering. What we're left with is not just a humanitarian crisis, but a mirror: reflecting a British foreign policy that has, for years, outsourced its ethics to perceived strategic interests, PR management and the enduring fiction that some human lives are worth less than others. Dylan Stothard is the Policy and Advocacy Coordinator for Children Not Numbers Related
