Joe Biden prostate cancer diagnosis: What a Gleason score of 9 means?
Former President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, his office announced. The 82-year-old was examined last week after he experienced urinary symptoms, according to a statement Sunday from spokesperson Kelly Scully. The cancer had metastasized to the bone.
'While this represents a more aggressive form of the disease, the cancer appears to be hormone-sensitive which allows for effective management,' Scully said. 'The president and his family are reviewing treatment options with his physicians.'
Read More: Biden-Robert Hur audio: Transcript of everything ex-Prez said in the infamous interview
The press release noted a Gleason score of 9 (Grade Group 5) and metastasis to the bone. Below is an explanation of what a Gleason score of 9 means in the context of this diagnosis.
The Gleason score is a grading system used to assess the aggressiveness of prostate cancer based on the appearance of cancer cells under a microscope. It ranges from 6 to 10, with higher scores indicating more aggressive cancer. A score of 9 is among the highest, signifying a highly aggressive form.
Read More: Health decline to wheelchair use: 10 bombshell claims about Joe Biden in new book
Score Breakdown: A Gleason score of 9 typically combines two patterns, such as 4+5 or 5+4, where the first number represents the most common cell pattern and the second the secondary pattern. Pattern 5 indicates the most abnormal, least differentiated cells, suggesting rapid cancer growth.
Grade Group 5: A Gleason score of 9 corresponds to Grade Group 5, the highest risk category, indicating a cancer that is likely to grow and spread quickly, per the American Cancer Society.
Metastasis to Bone: The diagnosis includes bone metastasis, meaning the cancer has spread beyond the prostate to the skeletal system, a hallmark of advanced-stage (Stage IV) prostate cancer. This complicates treatment and worsens prognosis, per Mayo Clinic.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
Alzheimer's disease: A blood test can detect early symptoms, finds study
Imagine getting tested for Alzheimer's with just a simple blood draw instead of going through complicated brain scans or spinal taps. Sounds like the future, right? Well, it's pretty much here. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic in the U.S. have been working on a new blood test that can accurately detect early signs of Alzheimer's disease, and the results are seriously impressive. This test looks at two specific proteins in your blood—amyloid beta 42/40 and p-tau217—both of which are linked to that gunky buildup in the brain called amyloid plaques, a telltale sign of Alzheimer's. So how accurate is it? Try 95% sensitivity, meaning it correctly identifies people who do have memory problems 95% of the time. That's pretty hard to beat. It also has 82% specificity, which means it's also really good at ruling out people who don't have Alzheimer's. What's even better? This isn't just lab testing. The study was done on over 500 real patients in a memory clinic—so it's based on actual, day-to-day medical situations, not just controlled experiments. Dr. Gregg Day, who led the study (published in Alzheimer's & Dementia journal), said this new blood test works just as well as the more invasive and expensive options we currently use. "It's about as accurate as spinal fluid testing," he told The Guardian, 'but way easier, less painful, and much cheaper.' In people who had Alzheimer's, the levels of p-tau217 were clearly higher compared to those who didn't, which helped the team confirm the diagnosis confidently. The best part? This blood test has already gotten the green light from the U.S. FDA—so it's not just theory anymore, it's actually available. 6 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's disease Alzheimer's disease is becoming a huge concern across the U.S.—and it's not just about forgetfulness in old age. It's a progressive brain disorder that slowly chips away at memory, thinking skills, and the ability to do everyday tasks. Right now, more than 6 million Americans are living with Alzheimer's, and that number is expected to nearly double by 2050. Most people with Alzheimer's are 65 or older, but it can also hit younger adults in what's called early-onset Alzheimer's. The biggest risk factor is age, but family history and genetics also play a role. The disease usually starts slow—maybe forgetting names or getting lost in familiar places—and worsens over time. The best part is science is catching up. New blood tests and brain imaging tools are helping doctors catch the disease earlier than ever before. There are also a few new medications out that might slow down the progression if taken early enough. Next up, researchers want to test it on even more diverse groups of people and also those who might be in the very early stages of Alzheimer's but don't have any symptoms yet. In short: diagnosing Alzheimer's just got a whole lot simpler—and that could change everything when it comes to early intervention and treatment. One step to a healthier you—join Times Health+ Yoga and feel the change
NDTV
3 days ago
- NDTV
WHO Is Finalising A New Treaty To Prep For The Next Pandemic, But US Isn't Signing
On March 20, 2025, members of the World Health Organization adopted the world's first pandemic agreement, following three years of 'intensive negotiations launched by governments in response to the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.' The U.S., however, did not participate, in part because of its intention to withdraw from the WHO. Global health experts are hailing the agreement as a historic moment. What does the agreement mean for the world, and how can it make everyone safer and more prepared for the next pandemic? The Conversation asked Nicole Hassoun, a professor at Binghamton University and executive director of Global Health Impact, to explain the pandemic accord, its prospects for advancing global health, and the significance of the U.S.'s absence from it. What will the pandemic agreement do? The accord will bolster pandemic preparation within individual countries and around the world. Countries signing onto the agreement are committing to improve their disease surveillance and grow their heath care workforces, strengthen their regulatory systems and invest in research and development. It encourages countries to strengthen their health regulations and infrastructure, improve communication with the public about pandemics and increase funding for preparation and response efforts. It also includes new mechanisms for producing and distributing vaccines and other essential countermeasures. Finally, it encourages countries to coordinate their responses and share information about infectious diseases and intellectual property so that vaccines and other essential countermeasures can be made available more quickly. The agreement will take effect once enough countries ratify it, which may take several years. Why isn't the US involved? The Biden administration was broadly supportive of a pandemic agreement and was an active participant in negotiations. Prior to Donald Trump's reelection, however, Republican governors had signed a letter opposing the treaty, echoing a conservative think tank's concerns about U.S. sovereignty. The U.S. withdrew from negotiations when President Trump signed an executive order to withdraw from the WHO on the day he was inaugurated for his second term. Why could the lack of US involvement be beneficial for the world? The lack of U.S. involvement likely resulted in a much more equitable treaty, and it is not clear that countries could have reached an agreement had the U.S. continued to object to key provisions. It was only once the U.S. withdrew from the negotiations that an agreement was reached. The U.S. and several other wealthy countries were concerned with protecting their pharmaceutical industry's profits and resisted efforts aimed at convincing pharmaceutical companies to share the knowledge, data and intellectual property needed for producing new vaccines and other essential countermeasures. Other negotiators sought greater access to vaccines and other treatments during a pandemic for poorer countries, which often rely on patented technologies from global pharmaceutical companies. While most people in wealthy countries had access to COVID-19 vaccines as early as 2021, many people in developing countries had to wait years for vaccines. How could the agreement broaden access for treatments? One of the contentious issues in the pandemic agreement has to do with how many vaccines manufacturers in each country must share in exchange for access to genetic sequences to emerging infectious diseases. Countries are still negotiating a system for sharing the genetic information on pathogens in return for access to vaccines themselves. It is important that researchers can get these sequences to make vaccines. And, of course, people need access to the vaccines once they are developed. Still, there are many more promising aspects of the agreement for which no further negotiations are necessary. For instance, the agreement will increase global vaccine supply by increasing manufacturing around the world. The agreement also specifies that countries and the WHO should work together to create a mechanism for fairly sharing the intellectual property, data and knowledge needed to produce vaccines and other essential health products. If financing for new innovation requires equitable access to the new technologies that are developed, many people in poor countries may get access to vaccines much more quickly in the next pandemic. The agreement also encourages individual countries to offer sufficient incentives for pharmaceutical companies to extend access to developing countries. If countries implement these changes, that will benefit people in rich countries as well as poor ones. A more equitable distribution of vaccines can contain the spread of disease, saving millions of lives. What more should be done, and does the US have a role to play? In my view, the best way to protect public health moving forward is for countries to sign on to the agreement and devote more resources to global health initiatives. This is particularly important given declining investment and participation in the WHO and the contraction of other international health initiatives, such as USAID. Without international coordination, it will become harder to catch and address problems early enough to prevent epidemics from becoming pandemics. It will also be imperative for member countries to provide funding to support the agreement's goals and secure the innovation and access to new technologies. This requires building the basic health infrastructure to ensure shots can get into people's arms.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Time of India
'Incredibly scary': Trump admin takes a huge step that could endanger lives of pregnant women
The Donald Trump administration announced on Tuesday it is rescinding Biden-era guidance that uses a federal law to require hospitals to stabilize patients in need of emergency care -- including by providing an abortion. In July 2022, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued guidance that, under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), doctors must perform abortions in emergency departments -- even in states where the procedure is illegal -- particularly if it serves as a "stabilizing medical treatment" for an emergency medical condition. In 2022, shortly after the US Supreme Court overturned nationwide abortion protections, the Biden administration issued guidance aimed at safeguarding abortion access in critical medical situations. The guidance sought to ensure that women facing life-threatening emergencies—such as severe hemorrhaging or the risk of organ failure—could still receive necessary abortion care. The administration contended that, even in states with near-total abortion bans, hospitals were obligated to perform emergency abortions under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). This federal law mandates that emergency rooms accepting Medicare funds must provide medical examinations and stabilizing treatment to all patients. Since nearly every ER in the US depends on Medicare, the rule effectively applied nationwide. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Tired of High Power Bills? Plug in This Device elecTrick - Save upto 80% on Power Bill Learn More Undo ALSO READ: Jeffrey Epstein's hidden wealth exposed: A secret investment made years ago is returning 325% return Trump revokes emergency abortion policy With Tuesday's announcement, the Trump administration declared it will stop enforcing the requirement, prompting huge concern among doctors and abortion rights advocates over the potential impact on access to emergency care. Even under the Biden administration's federal guidance, an AP investigation last year revealed that dozens of pregnant women were already being denied urgent medical treatment, including emergency abortions. Live Events The Biden administration had previously filed a lawsuit against Idaho, arguing that the state's restrictive abortion law—which only permits the procedure to save the mother's life—violated the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). While the US Supreme Court issued a procedural decision in the case, it left unresolved key legal questions, such as whether doctors in states with abortion bans can legally perform emergency abortions when a patient faces severe health risks. ALSO READ: 'Cringe, awful': Meghan Markle's unexpected and unusual video on daughter's fourth birthday sets Internet abuzz How will Trump's move impact guidance impact care? Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, a legal group that defended Biden's interpretation of EMTALA in court, said that erasing the guidance would prove dangerous for pregnant women seeking reproductive healthcare in states with abortion bans on the books. 'The Trump administration's decision to withdraw EMTALA guidance guaranteeing pregnant people medical care in emergency situations will sow confusion for providers and endanger the lives and health of pregnant people,' she said, in a written statement. 'Every American deserves the right to access the necessary care in emergency scenarios, including pregnant people, without political interference.' Despite the change in the guidance, EMTALA remains in place, reports the Times. The Trump Administration did not directly instruct hospitals to deny abortions in emergency situations. However, in a memo announcing the policy reversal, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) clarified that the Department of Health and Human Services cannot enforce the Biden Administration's interpretation of EMTALA—which states that federal law overrides Texas' near-total abortion ban—citing court decisions that have temporarily blocked this guidance in Texas. ALSO READ: Hundreds of thousands in US asked to limit outdoor activities in multiple places, emergency declared in 2 states Abortion-rights advocates condemned the move, arguing that it puts the health and lives of pregnant individuals at serious risk. Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, strongly criticized the move. 'The Trump administration would rather see women die in emergency rooms than allow them to receive life-saving abortion care,' she said. 'In pulling back guidance, this administration is feeding the fear and confusion that already exists at hospitals in every state where abortion is banned. Hospitals need more guidance right now, not less.' 'It's making it incredibly scary for the American people and pregnant folks who would need access to emergency services,' Simpson says. 'People's lives are at stake.' 'We're making our health care professionals have to operate in a gray area when their work really needs to be clear,' Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, a reproductive justice collective, told Times. 'They're in the business of providing life-saving care to people on a daily basis, and they don't need to be put in a position where their decision making is compromised.' When that confusion happens, she said, 'people die.' Simpson says that, for states that have banned or restricted abortion, like her home state of Georgia, rescinding the Biden-era guidance is 'just going to make things worse.'
