It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



Cancer: Prostate Message Board
Post New Thread   Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-28-2011, 02:35 AM   #1
Veteran
(male)
 
Baptista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Albufeira, Portugal
Posts: 464
Baptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB User
Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Some of us are getting older as years pass while on cancer (I am on my eleventh). And many even without knowing are part of the numbers used in the trials that project the statistics on which doctors rely to decide on a treatment. In my initial times those tables were all based on survival periods of 5 or 10 years, but recently there have been some efforts to extend the statistics periods so that patients with more than ten years on treatment can rely on future projections. They call it “Long-term risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality”.

Here are some sites that better include this class of PCa survivors;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21239008

For those interested in reading a more descriptive report of the above just type this sentence in a net search-engine;
“15-year outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a new predictive model”

Still another more recent (Jan 2011) informative post, type this sentence;
“Projection of 15-year prostate cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy”

Wishing the best to all Pca members.
Baptista

 
The Following User Says Thank You to Baptista For This Useful Post:
Gleason9 (01-28-2011)
Old 01-28-2011, 08:55 AM   #2
Junior Member
(male)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 34
rhome HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Baptista

Hard for me to read. What does it mean for Gleason 9 with seminal invasion.

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 01-28-2011, 10:28 AM   #3
Veteran
(male)
 
Baptista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Albufeira, Portugal
Posts: 464
Baptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhome View Post
Baptista

Hard for me to read. What does it mean for Gleason 9 with seminal invasion.
Rhome

You may want to read in detail the whole abstract. The nomogram is also influenced by age of the patient not only Gleason, but you can see your status in this quotation;
“……When patients are stratified by age at diagnosis, the nomogram predicts 15-year PCSM rates (prostate cancer specific mortality) as follows:

•For men with a pathological Gleason score 6 or less — 0.2 to 1.2 percent
•For men with a pathological Gleason score of 3 + 4 = 7 — 4.2 to 6.5 percent
•For men with a pathological Gleason score of 4 + 3 = 7 — 6.6 to 11.0 percent
•For men with a pathological Gleason score of between 8 and 10 — 26.0 to 37 percent.
•For men with organ-confined disease — 0.8 to 1.5 percent
•For men with extraprostatic extension — 2.9 to 10.0 percent
•For men with seminal vesicle invasion — 15.0 to 27.0 percent
•For men with lymph node metastasis — 22.0 to 30.0 percent

The authors conclude that, “The prostate cancer specific mortality risk can be predicted with remarkable accuracy after the pathological features of prostate cancer are known” and that poorly differentiated cancer and seminal vesicle invasion are the prime determinants of PCSM after radical prostatectomy………”

Wishing that this helps your quest.
Baptista

 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baptista For This Useful Post:
IADT3since2000 (01-29-2011), rhome (01-28-2011)
Old 01-28-2011, 11:00 AM   #4
Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 332
honda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

So, Baptista, how would this apply to Irv who has a Gleason score of 3+4 but who also has extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle involvement?

Also, did these patients have any secondary treatments, either adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy or hormone therapy? Would this make any difference?

Rhonda

Last edited by honda50; 01-28-2011 at 11:05 AM.

 
Old 01-28-2011, 01:10 PM   #5
Veteran
(male)
 
Baptista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Albufeira, Portugal
Posts: 464
Baptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB User
Thumbs up Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Quote:
Originally Posted by srhonda61 View Post
So, Baptista, how would this apply to Irv who has a Gleason score of 3+4 but who also has extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle involvement?

Also, did these patients have any secondary treatments, either adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy or hormone therapy? Would this make any difference?

Rhonda
Rhonda

In the case of Irv’s the nomogram predicts 15-year PCSM rates (prostate cancer specific mortality) as 4.2% to 6.5% for is Gleason and15% to 27% for his seminal vesicle invasion.
I want to point out that this is statisctcs based on prostatectomy. They quote like this;
“….The importance of this paper is that it shows a remarkably low risk of dying of prostate cancer within 15 years for treated men, and supports the concept that men with slow-growing cancers may not need immediate treatment.” …… “Further good news is that surgery was very effective in preventing death in men with aggressive cancers — defined as those with a high PSA, poorly differentiated with a Gleason grade of 8-10, or locally extensive……”

Irv’s case is classified medium aggressive cancer but high risk patient for his extra prostatic extension.
They also take into account the quality of physician practice. They quote;
“…. if surgery (in particular) is your treatment of choice, then having the operation carried out by the most skilled specialist you can get to is a key aspect of optimizing the likelihood of a good outcome….”

That means you could expect still better diagnosis than nomogram predictions.
Regarding future prognosis based on a choice of salvage treatment (Irv’s intent), then you could use the MSKCC’s 10 years nomograms tool named “Prostate Cancer Nomograms” (just type this sentence in a net search-engine).

They quote like this; “Portions of this tool can be used by patients who have had a radical prostatectomy surgery or received radiation therapy to treat prostate cancer” or under hormonal therapy.

Wishing that this helps your quest.
Baptista

 
Old 01-28-2011, 08:54 PM   #6
Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 332
honda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

I like the positivity here. Wonderful!

Okay, so now I have a very unmedical question...Irv and I are thinking about going away somewhere out of the country at the end of March. I'm counting on the fact that Irv, by that time, will be on hormone therapy and we can decide on radiation at a later date. So, should we or shouldn't we? Is there any medical reason that he would be at risk if we went on a trip?

I'll really look forward to opinions on this.

Rhonda

 
Old 01-28-2011, 10:26 PM   #7
Veteran
(male)
 
Baptista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Albufeira, Portugal
Posts: 464
Baptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Quote:
Originally Posted by srhonda61 View Post
I like the positivity here. Wonderful!

Okay, so now I have a very unmedical question...Irv and I are thinking about going away somewhere out of the country at the end of March. I'm counting on the fact that Irv, by that time, will be on hormone therapy and we can decide on radiation at a later date. So, should we or shouldn't we? Is there any medical reason that he would be at risk if we went on a trip?

I'll really look forward to opinions on this.

Rhonda
As far as he takes the drugs timely (shots and pills, if any), there will be no problem.
Enjoy the trip.

 
Old 01-29-2011, 05:13 AM   #8
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annandale, VA, USA
Posts: 1,730
Blog Entries: 3
IADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Hi Baptista,

Thanks so much for posting this topic. I've been wondering if some research would soon document 15 or 20 year projected survival, and this has done it. I'm responding to your first post, quoted in part below. With a few comments in green.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baptista View Post
Some of us are getting older as years pass while on cancer (I am on my eleventh). ... In my initial times those tables were all based on survival periods of 5 or 10 years, but recently there have been some efforts to extend the statistics periods so that patients with more than ten years on treatment can rely on future projections. They call it “Long-term risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality”.

Here are some sites that better include this class of PCa survivors;
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21239008

For those interested in reading a more descriptive report of the above just type this sentence in a net search-engine;
“15-year outcomes after radical prostatectomy: a new predictive model”

Still another more recent (Jan 2011) informative post, type this sentence;
“Projection of 15-year prostate cancer-specific survival after radical prostatectomy”

Wishing the best to all Pca members.
Baptista
What an all-star lineup of authors for that paper, reflecting a broad swath of top surgical expertise! Here are some of the well-known names from the author list: Peter Scardino (MSK), Patrick Walsh (JHU), Alan Partin (JHU - pathology), Michael Kattan (formerly MSK - nomogram expert), Eric Klein (Cleveland Clinic).

In answer to Rhonda's question, the statistics were based on patients treated from 1987 to 2005. That means that many were treated with older methods. Many of these patients were from Johns Hopkins, and, surprisingly, Johns Hopkins was very slow to pick up on the value of aggressive use of hormonal blockade therapy, let alone triple therapy, which probably still is not used by JHU. I do not know whether that is the case for MSK or the Cleveland Clinic, or other sites where patients were treated. I do know that triple hormonal blockade was rarely used until around 2000, and even then few patients were getting it. Leukine was unknown until well into this period, as was the usefulness and safety of transdermal estrogen, in contrast to risky oral estrogen. The importance of bisphosphonate drugs was not widely appreciated until the middle of the past decade, and Zometa was not available until well into this period. There was no Provenge, no Avodart until well into the period, and no Revlimid (thalidomide was available, but not widely used for prostate cancer, I believe, until very late stages). IMRT was unknown in the early days. Use of lifestyle tactics involving food, supplements, exercise and stress reduction was not widely appreciated. These are just a few of the advances available to men today that would have had limited availability earlier.

Therefore, I have a strong belief that results for men taking full advantage of modern approaches to recurrence would be substantially better than even these reassuring statistics.


Last edited by IADT3since2000; 01-29-2011 at 05:18 AM. Reason: Brief additions right after posting. (Always so clear once you publish anything!)

 
Old 01-29-2011, 12:59 PM   #9
Veteran
(male)
 
Baptista's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Albufeira, Portugal
Posts: 464
Baptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB UserBaptista HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Jim

Thanks for the comments. I believe that statistics are old from the very first day when they are published and released. Many new cases are left behind particularly those that have been treated on resent modern alternatives and better practice.
Medicine as we have known in our over-ten-years cases, have improved and results of treatments can therefore be expected to be better now. One could idealize the statistics (surgery) as “short-sighted” to improvements and therefore could add a beneficial percentage point to the items presented.
However we should congratulate those teams preparing these helpful tables no matter how tampered or influenced the data could have been done. I am hopeful that other statistics for Radiation and for Hormonal are published to longer periods of survival so that “new members” can aspire and reflect their way of living on a long term basis.

Wishing you a continuous success.
Baptista

 
Old 02-01-2011, 06:00 PM   #10
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annandale, VA, USA
Posts: 1,730
Blog Entries: 3
IADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Hi Rhonda,

I'm replying to your earlier post #4 on this thread, though you may have already had an answer from the oncologist by now if you had the time to ask. I also like Baptista's answer; I'll join his choir.

How did it go today? Don't worry about offending me if he said you had received some nutty advice. Us triple blockade folks are used to that as we run up against entrenched conventional wisdom.

You wrote:


Quote:
Originally Posted by srhonda61 View Post
So, Baptista, how would this apply to Irv who has a Gleason score of 3+4 but who also has extraprostatic extension and seminal vesicle involvement?
I'm thinking that anyone who has seminal vesicle involvement also, by definition, has extraprostatic extension. It seems to me that you would go with the figures for seminal vesicle involvement as those figures are for a more specific risk. If you flip the figures, you can see that the vast majority of men with seminal vesicle involvement are alive at the fifteen year point, as Baptista noted. As always, the numbers are based on experience some years ago, a period before the advances in technology we enjoy today.

Quote:
Also, did these patients have any secondary treatments, either adjuvant or salvage radiation therapy or hormone therapy? Would this make any difference?

Rhonda
I'm convinced that secondary treatment would make a substantial difference, especially hormonal therapy.

Take care,

Jim

Last edited by IADT3since2000; 02-01-2011 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Added a few thoughts just after posting.

 
Old 02-01-2011, 09:36 PM   #11
Veteran
(female)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario Canada
Posts: 332
honda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB Userhonda50 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Jim, I'm so convinced about the idea of triple blockade and, you'd be right in thinking that it isn't well accepted here.

We saw the radiation oncologist today and it seems that, in Irv's case, radiation would give an extremely low chance of cure which isn't worth the risk of the radiation having a terribly adverse effect on his colitis.

The bone scan was negative (no surprises there) and the ct scan showed an enlargement of one of the lymph nodes which is sort of off to the side. This could either be due to the cancer, which would account for the 1.19 PSA or it could be due to the colitis. There is no way to know for sure. Irv's case was discussed by a team of doctors and there was some disagreement on the likelihood of the enlargement being due to the cancer or not.

So, now we wait for his second PSA result which he had done today. We pray that it hasn't changed much. There are several clinical trials being done by the medical oncologic team. My concern is that triple blockade is something they don't believe in. Are there men out there who didn't do well on triple blockade? I still have to see specific clinical trials which support triple blockade and share those with the medical team here.

Then, we went to our support group and there was a man who failed after 5 years of hormone therapy.....NOT triple blockade, and now he's got cancer all over with a prognosis of six months.

Then there was another guy...he had radiation after surgery and was on Eligard which gave him terrible arthritis. He said he felt like his grandmother. So, he was taken off the Eligard and is now being watched to see what success he might have from the radiation. I was wondering why he was kept on the Eligard if he had such terrible side effects from it. Wouldn't it have been sensible to try another drug, like Lupron on Casodex?

Then there was another guy who said that hormone therapy causes diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol...

One woman said that it causes heart attacks.

Another man said that you won't get a doctor to prescribe Avodart in Toronto for the purpose of triple blockade.

So, to say the least, the evening ended in frustration for me.

Lastly, the radiation oncologist suggested that there are other drugs better than Avodart and when I asked what, he mentioned Abiraterone. But I thought that was second line hormone therapy when the cancer becomes hormone refractory.....So would it be wise to jump straight to the Abiraterone?

So....nothing conclusive yet...still waiting....I know that the clinical trial that the doctor's at PMH are thinking of getting Irv into, require three consecutive jumps in PSA...so basically wait until that happens, which might not take as long as we'd hope it would.

My feeling is that I just want Irv to be treated...to jump on this before it can become more aggressive...but the treatment approaches are different here, it seems.....maybe behind the times.....and we don't have bottomless pockets to deal with this....to go to the states and pay for treatment there.

So, that's it for now. We still have to wait and see.

Rhonda

 
Old 02-02-2011, 09:33 AM   #12
Senior Veteran
(male)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Annandale, VA, USA
Posts: 1,730
Blog Entries: 3
IADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB UserIADT3since2000 HB User
Re: Projection of 15-year Prostate cancer Specific survival

Hi Rhonda,

I'm sorry you were not able to get where you wanted to be. At least you and Irv have planted some ideas that may bear fruit among the doctors. As I think back, it took me more than half a year from the time I started discussing triple blockade and bone density attention until I found a doctor who would help me with those issues. I'll respond in green to your immediately preceding post.


Quote:
Originally Posted by srhonda61 View Post
Jim, I'm so convinced about the idea of triple blockade and, you'd be right in thinking that it isn't well accepted here.

We saw the radiation oncologist today and it seems that, in Irv's case, radiation would give an extremely low chance of cure which isn't worth the risk of the radiation having a terribly adverse effect on his colitis.
That's kind of where I was with radiation, but for different reasons. I did not have to worry about GI or urinary issues, but the strategy was to include aggressive pelvic radiation.

Quote:
The bone scan was negative (no surprises there) and the ct scan showed an enlargement of one of the lymph nodes which is sort of off to the side. This could either be due to the cancer, which would account for the 1.19 PSA or it could be due to the colitis. There is no way to know for sure. Irv's case was discussed by a team of doctors and there was some disagreement on the likelihood of the enlargement being due to the cancer or not.
Actually, there probably is a way, but it may not be practical for you. The Netherlands was doing a steady stream of Combidex scanning, a technique that was highly effective for finding mets in the lymph nodes. It used an iron oxide contrast agent that would migrate to non-cancer cells in nodes but not cancer cells, so the cancer cells would stand out during the scan. The company making the agent ceased production. However, a new company, in Florida, is now making a similar agent that is supposed to work even better. I think Irv would have to go to Florida to get the scan, however. I suspect this will catch on fast and become more widely available. You might want to contact some of the leading and pioneering Canadian researchers, such as Drs. Klotz and Fleshner, or perhaps Vancouver, to see if they are aware of Canadian facilities that are experimenting with the technique.

Quote:
So, now we wait for his second PSA result which he had done today. We pray that it hasn't changed much. There are several clinical trials being done by the medical oncologic team. My concern is that triple blockade is something they don't believe in.
Here's a thought. Irv could ask to try triple blockade for a six months period. During that time his PSA is almost certain to drop to below 0.05 using an ultrasensitive test, hopefully one capable of a reading of <0.01, and the extent and rapidity of the decline should impress the doctors. Such declines are common with triple blockade, but, while they do happen with single and two drug blockade, are not common, as I understand it. Monthly or bimonthly PSAs would be wise to document the rapid decline. It will probably happen within the first three months, but the additional three will allow leeway. It often takes those of us with very high PSAs many months longer, but Irv is starting with a relatively low PSA. Many men with PSAs like his have experienced that very rapid and profound decline.

Quote:
Are there men out there who didn't do well on triple blockade?
There are a few, and the weaker than normal response is an indicator of either substandard delivery and management of the drugs or unusually aggressive disease. In the latter situation, triple blockade adds valuable information in staging the disease and indicating the need for trying advanced drugs like Leukine. It seems to me those who truly fail well-done triple blockade fall into two groups: those with rare types of prostate cancer, such as some "small cell" and "endometrial" prostate cancer (named because the cells resemble the shape of female cells), or because the patient is already hormone refractory (androgen independent); that's quite unlikely for Irv at this point. The key to assuring well-done blockade is monitoring, at least with tests to assess the PSA, testosterone and DHT levels, and with a liver function test for the first few months to make sure the bicalutamide is not causing liver problems (a rare issue).

Quote:
I still have to see specific clinical trials which support triple blockade and share those with the medical team here.
Unfortunately, there simply are no completed formal clinical trials to offer as evidence. What I gave you a few days ago is about the best you will find. Frankly, I believe that doctors who insist on clinical trial evidence for pioneering advances are often copping out, hiding behind the "clinical trial evidence" excuse in order to avoid having to move out of their comfort zones. Hopefully, we will have evidence from Dr. Sartor's trial in the near future, but it could be one, two or even three years til we see those results. In the meantime, ask what is the harm of adding the third drug? To me, the high likely benefit and minimal harm balance is persuasive.

Another option is to commence two drug ("combined") blockade, which has been well accepted for years, and keep trying to get on triple blockade. In effect, that's what I did. I started with single drug blockade in December 1999; Casodex was added by the radiation doctor in early March 2000; and I was able to have Proscar added (and Fosamax) in mid-September 2000. I did not even realize that there were such things as two-drug and triple blockade when the doctor added the Casodex. The PSA is unlikely to fall as fast or as far on two-drug blockade, but it still may eventually reach <0.05.


Quote:
Then, we went to our support group and there was a man who failed after 5 years of hormone therapy.....NOT triple blockade, and now he's got cancer all over with a prognosis of six months.
Such failure is not unusual with single drug blockade. I was really impressed with a study by Japanese doctors who compared results from various types of hormonal therapy from all over Japan. What it showed for single drug blockade was that the bottom dropped out around the five year point for stage 3 patients. I posted about this on 2/3/9 at 5:46 PM, response number 5 to my thread "So far so good, 2nd PSA, third round, tenth year. I just searched to find it, and you may be able to get there quickly by using this: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/showthread.php?p=3872905&highlight=Japan ese+hormonal#post3872905 . I can't help suspecting the unfortunate patient you talked to is being managed by a urologist. There is so much that can be done and that should have been done. However, unless this man finds an expert doctor, that prognosis may prove accurate. Such results do happen with combined blockade too, but it is rare these days, I think.


Quote:
Then there was another guy...he had radiation after surgery and was on Eligard which gave him terrible arthritis. He said he felt like his grandmother. So, he was taken off the Eligard and is now being watched to see what success he might have from the radiation. I was wondering why he was kept on the Eligard if he had such terrible side effects from it. Wouldn't it have been sensible to try another drug, like Lupron on Casodex?
Bone and joint soreness or pain to some degree is fairly common for a while at the beginning of blockade. Usually it is quite minor. I use glucosamine tablets daily, which probably helps. I'm right with you in thinking that other drugs should have been tried.

Quote:
Then there was another guy who said that hormone therapy causes diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. One woman said that it causes heart attacks.
It's sometimes hard to think when you are at these meetings, but you know the answers to those statements. All of these appear to be increased risks for men on hormonal blockade, though there is some controversy about the heart attacks. However, only some of us experience, each one; they are often mild and quite tolerable; there are usually effective countermeasures to prevent or minimize each; and, for the many patients able to take a vacation (perhaps permanently) from the heavier duty drugs, the side effects almost always disappear.

It's not really accurate to say that blockade causes these things, as they are far from a certainty. It is accurate to say that blockade increases the risks. Check your Primer for some other side effects; page 153 of my original edition lists the seven most common in the then Strum/Scholz practice, and two others are discussed elsewhere (impotency, p. 151, and bone density, pp. 142-143). Up until I read Dr. Scholz's new book, I too thought there was an increased risk for heart trouble that needed to be countered. However, Dr. Scholz makes a reasonable sounding argument that the reverse is true. If you have his book, read page 81. He concludes the section on hormonal therapy and heart attacks with this sentence: "However, the best prospective study evaluating this question shows that the net effect of TIP [meaning hormonal therapy] is an overall reduction[his Italics] in heart attacks by about 10%. The beneficial effect of thinning the blood is apparently sufficient to offset the known risks from gaining weight."



Quote:
Another man said that you won't get a doctor to prescribe Avodart in Toronto for the purpose of triple blockade.

So, to say the least, the evening ended in frustration for me.
He may be right, but I've learned not to let such statements affect what I try to do. It's one thing to just ask a doctor to prescribe Avodart; it's another to work with him or her to show them why experts think its important and why you want to give the drug a try.


Quote:
Lastly, the radiation oncologist suggested that there are other drugs better than Avodart and when I asked what, he mentioned Abiraterone. But I thought that was second line hormone therapy when the cancer becomes hormone refractory.....So would it be wise to jump straight to the Abiraterone?
I need to learn more about Abiraterone. It's an exciting new drug, but I believe it is better for men with more advanced disease than Irv now appears to have. Also, I suspect the radiation doctor is not that knowledgeable about drugs. Radiation docs are expert in radiation and the drugs that directly support it, but usually they are far less knowledgeable than medical oncologists about the full drug arsenal, which is the oncologists' bag of tricks. For one thing, Avodart as a stand alone would be rather weak, and, unlike Abiraterone, is not normally used by the experts in a stand-alone mode.


Quote:
So....nothing conclusive yet...still waiting....I know that the clinical trial that the doctor's at PMH are thinking of getting Irv into, require three consecutive jumps in PSA...so basically wait until that happens, which might not take as long as we'd hope it would.
I'll climb briefly up onto one of my soapboxes. One flaw in treatment at a major research center is that the docs there are often hungry for patients for their clinical trials. I fended off several attempts to recruit me. That is probably one of the reasons some docs do not want their patients on triple blockade, or even combined blockade: it will remove them from the pool of patients they can recruit for their own or their colleagues trials. I'm all in favor of clinical trials when patients are properly recruited. I'm strongly against recruiting a patient for a trial when an existing approach, even if still not standard - like triple therapy, appears to offer a superior approach.

Quote:
My feeling is that I just want Irv to be treated...to jump on this before it can become more aggressive...but the treatment approaches are different here, it seems.....maybe behind the times.....and we don't have bottomless pockets to deal with this....to go to the states and pay for treatment there.

So, that's it for now. We still have to wait and see.

Rhonda
So many of us have to deal with these practical issues and work out acceptable compromises that include our wallets and other issues. I've made a few of these compromises myself. I hope you find an approach that works well, and I hope you will keep up your spirits and assertiveness while searching for it.

Take care,

Jim

Last edited by IADT3since2000; 02-02-2011 at 11:30 AM. Reason: A couple of small changes.

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
Post surgery Incontenence FL48 Cancer: Prostate 6 11-29-2010 06:00 PM
Sad about Seminal Vesicle Invasion... honda50 Cancer: Prostate 6 11-26-2010 03:11 PM
Proton Vs Cyberknife Tortugajake Cancer: Prostate 63 08-14-2010 01:03 PM
Androgel dmarcus48 Cancer: Prostate 2 02-27-2010 02:49 PM
PSA 2.1 to 6.9 in 15 months DaveGalt Cancer: Prostate 7 09-22-2009 07:23 AM




Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Join Our Newsletter

Stay healthy through tips curated by our health experts.

Whoops,

There was a problem adding your email Try again

Thank You

Your email has been added




Top 10 Drugs Discussed on this Board.
(Go to DrugTalk.com for complete list)
Casodex
Cialis
Cipro
Flomax
Levaquin
  Levitra
Morphine
Proscar
Tylenol
Viagra




TOP THANKED CONTRIBUTORS



Tall Allen (174), IADT3since2000 (148), Baptista (97), Gleason9 (28), harpman (27), Johnt1 (22), honda50 (9), tumbleweed (6), flyfisher37 (6), GUAMJOHN (6)

Site Wide Totals

teteri66 (1182), MSJayhawk (1015), Apollo123 (913), Titchou (862), janewhite1 (823), Gabriel (763), ladybud (760), midwest1 (671), sammy64 (668), BlueSkies14 (607)



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:46 AM.



Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.com™
Terms of Use © 1998-2014 HealthBoards.com™ All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!