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 02-25-2011, 09:01 PM   #1
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
Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

The world reknowned Dr. Tannock refused to prescribe it. He said that he wouldn't have recommended starting the hormone therapy yet either, but rather would have monitored how fast the PSA goes up for awhile.

He prescribed the Lupron and he believes in intermittent hormone therapy, but just the single blockade....get off the Casodex after 3 weeks and just do the Lupron shots.....3 times...over 9 months....and then stop and wait for the PSA to go up as high as 5 or 10.

I think of a tree taking route and letting the routes flourish and gain strength and momentum.

He is dead set against triple blockade and feels that the added toxicity is no good without any evidence that it helps. He says he's had patients who have also lived for more than 10 years on his medication protocol.

He wouldn't hear of what I had to say about Dr. Scholz, Dr. Strum and Dr. Myers and even went as far as saying that one is way on the outer edge and that it's dangerous.

I mentioned the clinical trial done by the PMH specialists and he said that it's different because those men had very low risk, slow growing cancer.

Not sure where we go from here....He just thinks it's very unwise for patients to decide on their own treatment and would be much smarter to follow what the doctors recommend.

Well, that's the update. Comments are welcome.

Last edited by honda50; 02-25-2011 at 09:03 PM.

 
Old 02-26-2011, 01:05 PM   #2
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Hi Rhonda,

I'm so sorry you and Irv are running into this strong headwind at this time. Keep your spirits up! I believe you will find a supportive doctor. What you are encountering is what I and many of us have also been faced with, and my impression is that most of us have found a way to get triple blockade. There are at least three strong factors involved: blinders worn by expert research physicians at major institutions, patient empowerment, and limited published medical evidence. There are solutions, but they are not always easy to find. I'll insert some comments in green.

Quote:
Originally Posted by honda50 View Post
The world reknowned Dr. Tannock refused to prescribe it. He said that he wouldn't have recommended starting the hormone therapy yet either, but rather would have monitored how fast the PSA goes up for awhile.
He is not alone in that view. For example, some of the leading doctors at the world famous Brady Urological Institute at Johns Hopkins University, including famed pioneer prostate cancer surgeon Patrick Walsh, share that view. However, many medical oncologists - the doctors who are the experts in drugs for cancer, do not believe in delaying hormonal blockade; all of the experts I follow closely believe that early treatment is clearly superior.

Quote:
He prescribed the Lupron and he believes in intermittent hormone therapy, but just the single blockade....get off the Casodex after 3 weeks and just do the Lupron shots.....3 times...over 9 months....and then stop and wait for the PSA to go up as high as 5 or 10.
That surprises me because there is such compelling evidence in favor of combined blockade and Dr. Tannock clearly is a senior and respected researcher. On the other hand, I've found, to my initial surprise, that major institutions can become locked into certain approaches while locking out other approaches; I suspect this is what is happening with Dr. Tannock. Unlike triple blockade, hormonal therapy with two drugs - an LHRH-agonist (or surgical castration) plus an antiandrogen, has a lot of supportive research.

I just did a www.pubmed.gov search using this search string: " prostate cancer AND combined androgen deprivation therapy "; that yielded 532 hits - clearly a lot of research touching on combined blockade! Here is the citation for hit #9:

"Cancer Sci. 2011 Jan;102(1):51-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1349-7006.2010.01774.x. Epub 2010 Nov 22.
Combined androgen blockade for prostate cancer: review of efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness.
Akaza H. Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. The abstract indicates it is a good review of research that has been done. The abstract also mentions that research in the 1990s on combined blockade, was more ambiguous about benefits versus side effects, with that picture improving when Casodex (bicalutamide) came on the scene.

I have been strongly impressed by another Japanese study where the same author just cited is the second author listed. Here's the citation, and there's a free link to the entire study on www.pubmed.gov:
Current status of endocrine therapy for prostate cancer in Japan analysis of primary androgen deprivation therapy on the basis of data collected by J-CaP.

Hinotsu S, Akaza H, Usami M, Ogawa O, Kagawa S, Kitamura T, Tsukamoto T, Naito S, Namiki M, Hirao Y, Murai M, Yamanaka H; Japan Study Group of Prostate Cancer (J-CaP).
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct;37(10):775-81. Epub 2007 Oct 26.
PMID: 17965423 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free Article

This study also has great graphs that serve to portray the results. The study essentially compares various kinds of hormonal therapy: an antiandrogen alone (1,513 patients); surgical castration alone (955 patients); an LHRH agonist alone (3,015 patients); an LHRH agonist plus a short course of an antiandrogen - the approach Dr. Tannock intends (1,658 patients); surgical castration plus an antiandrogen (a form of combined therapy) (1,001 patients); an LHRH agonist plus an antiandrogen - not short term AA (10,434 patients); watchful waiting (37 patients (I'm not sure why this group was included here); and "other" (796 patients). One of several things I really like about this study is that there are many patients in the various groups.

Figure 1 is a bar graph of the number of patients in each approach, and the LHRH agonist plus long term antiandrogen use is the dominating group. This is, of course, the most common type of combined blockade. Table 1 on page 777 gives information about the patients - type of hospital, age at diagnosis, PSA at diagnosis, and Gleason score, all separated in columns for 2001, 2002, and 2003, the year each patient was registered in the study. There are many other informative tables and figures.

Howeer, I feel that Figure 6 for Stage III is one of the most informative. While four of the approaches notch success marks ranging from 41% to about 43% freedom from progression of the cancer at the five year mark, with the surgical castration plus antiandrogen scoring a surprisingly high 70% success at that point , the LHRH-agonist monotherapy arm falls practically off the chart right after the five year point, moving from about 39% success to about 12% success within a couple of months! While the approach Dr. Tannock is offering is above 40% at about the four years 8 months point, that is the last follow-up shown on the chart, and it is falling rather steeply.

It's important to understand that all of these approaches involve continuous, not intermittent, hormonal therapy, and none of the approaches in Figure 6 involve triple blockade. My strong impression is that patients on intermittent triple blockade, like me, typically do much better!

I just did the same search you see above but turned on these filters with the Limits button: only items with abstracts, Humans, Clinical Trial. That cut down the results to 112. (It's hard for me to do this because I always see interesting titles that I would like to explore.) I then removed "radiation" by using this string: " prostate cancer AND combined androgen deprivation therapy NOT radiation ", with 68 hits as the result. This demonstrates that there are many studies with results for combined blockade, and you will probably find some useful and encouraging information in them. Just bear in mind that these studies were done with patients treated in the past, and the more in the past, the fewer advances in technology, such as intermittent treatment, especially with triple blockade.



Quote:
I think of a tree taking route and letting the routes flourish and gain strength and momentum.
Yes. That's what we need to prevent. I can understand LHRH-agonist single drug therapy, perhaps with a short course of an antiandrogen, as preparation for radiation, but it no longer seems sound to me for a long-term approach.

He is dead set against triple blockade and feels that the added toxicity is no good without any evidence that it helps. He says he's had patients who have also lived for more than 10 years on his medication protocol.

It's so unfortunate that doctors do not bear in mind that 95% of high-risk patients, at least in the US, are alive at the ten year point; having your patient alive at that point is not such an accomplishment. What IS impressive is patients like me who are still doing very well and responding to hormonal therapy at the ten year point! Fortunately, that is typical for many of us on intermittent triple blockade, with lower-risk and intermediate-risk patients often able to do it with just one course of triple blockade.

As for the added toxicity, well, growing more hair in the male-pattern-baldness areas is something most of us are capable of enduring! (Of course I should also mention better urination behavior for those of us who still have prostates, another of those tough side effects. Finasteride and Avodart are very mild drugs for most of us. One leading doctor with a heavy practice in triple blockade has stated that finasteride and Avodart add almost nothing to the side effect burden. What Dr. Tannock's statement really shows, unfortunately, is that he is not familiar with the way these drugs act in a triple blockade (or even antiandrogen plus 5-ARI drug) approach. Hopefully he will gain that knowledge and change his opinion someday.

As for his statement that "there's no evidence it helps," you know the answer to that: yes, there is some evidence, including evidence in a major, peer-reviewed journal, but it is unfortunately quite limited outside of less formal publications.


Quote:
He wouldn't hear of what I had to say about Dr. Scholz, Dr. Strum and Dr. Myers and even went as far as saying that one is way on the outer edge and that it's dangerous.
I've run into this myself more than once from prostate cancer research experts at major institutions. The first time was during a consultation with Dr. Mario Eisenberger at Johns Hopkins, just after I had finally started taking finasteride, giving me a triple blockade approach about ten months after diagnosis. Dr. Eisenberger has an international reputation, especially in chemotherapy for prostate cancer. He advised me to dump the remaining Proscar (finasteride) in my container, and he was dismissive when I tried to tell him what the experts were saying. He knew Dr. Myers well from his days at the National Institutes of Health, but he thought he had become a loose cannon, a doctor operating beyond the fringe. Several years later I presented a survivor statement at an FDA committee hearing on a drug, and I approached Dr. Eisenberger afterwards. I doubt that he remembered me, but I mentioned our consultation and told him of my great success on triple blockade. He did not want to hear of it.

The other instance was with Dr. Christopher Logothetis of MD Anderson, also a prostate cancer medical oncologist with an international reputation. Dr. Logothetis too was dismissive when I talked to him after a "Meet the Experts" session at a cancer researchers conference, where I was again representing survivors. I again had a powerful sense of the "If I did not invent it, it doesn't count" syndrome. Both of these doctors, and some (but not all) others from major institutions, were highly resistant to research not performed in a major university setting but performed instead by doctors in private practice.


Quote:
I mentioned the clinical trial done by the PMH specialists and he said that it's different because those men had very low risk, slow growing cancer.
Actually, such patients were among the early patients treated with triple blockade many years ago by the doctors who are now experts. They saw the stunning success of such patients, and gradually they expanded their willingness to offer triple blockade, eventually making it their primary approach. Dr. Tannock is on that road, I think, but unless he learns of the work done by the experts and credits it, it will probably take him years before he freely recommends triple blockade.

Quote:
Not sure where we go from here....He just thinks it's very unwise for patients to decide on their own treatment and would be much smarter to follow what the doctors recommend.
Here you are running smack into the docile patient versus empowered patient divide. Many doctors want docile patients, though they prefer them to have basic information. My first three urologists were all like that, and all were respected, able doctors. I appreciate what the latter two did for me in providing information and orientation, but they were not what I needed.

In sharp contrast, the doctors I follow are committed and dedicated to patient empowerment. The books "A Primer on Prostate Cancer", "Beating Prostate Cancer: Hormonal Therapy & Diet", "Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers", the Prostate Forum Newsletter, the publications of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute including its Insights newsletter, and the National/International Conferences on Prostate Cancer are some of the examples of workings of the prostate cancer patient empowerment movement.


Well, that's the update. Comments are welcome.[/QUOTE]

Here are some thoughts on getting on triple blockade. You might have success in finding a local Toronto medical oncologist in private practice, who is open minded and not associated with a university. (That's what I finally did.) Dr. Fernand Labrie or the experts in Vancouver might be able to recommend such a doctor. I'm going to a research conference in early March as a survivor representative, and I'll see if I can get some names in the Toronto area from one of the Vancouver researchers who are sure to be there. However, you and Irv could probably reach them sooner by phone. (At least you are covered for three months of combined blockade.)

You also might want to approach Dr. Klotz again. He too may suffer from the major institution blinders, but he has a superb mind and is a pioneer who is able to take criticism from his peers in stride and take risks. He also is more than well aware that conventional wisdom in medicine is often wrong. (For instance, I'm sure he took a lot of heat when he recommended that active surveillance was suitable for appropriately qualified patients of any age; he is probably still catching flack for that view. Fortunately, he has the research facts to back his claims.) He was at the last session of the conference I will be attending, and I might get a chance to ask him if he is present.

Another option would be to travel to Vancouver for a consultation or to Quebec to see Dr. Labrie. Some doctors at Vancouver are expert in combined blockade and intermittent therapy, and Dr. Labrie is, of course, expert in combined blockade, and I think he has moved on to triple blockade; it might be possible to get them to start Irv on triple blockade with the understanding that a local doctor would administer the shots and do local testing. Each of the US experts has patients they support in this way.

As always, I hope you find something that works for you.

Take care,

Jim

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 02-26-2011, 01:56 PM   #3
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Thank you, Jim, for your very well thought out and informative response, as usual.

Actually, I already sent Dr. Labrie an email and I'd go there in a second if I knew he'd approve of triple blockade and write a prescription.

The small problem is that I'm more swayed than Irv by triple blockade, especially since Dr. Fleshner has just admitted that Avodart shows promise where low grade cancer patients are maintaining longer on active surveillance. I look at that as not much different that those patients on androgen blockade vacation periods. But, what do I know, right? I'm just the patient's caregiver who is a big troublemaker.

And what if it doesn't work? How would I live with that? Here I am, a major influence in the life of Irv...and this, afterall is about his LIFE! He is more easily swayed by experts like Dr. Tannock, and, actually, how can I blame him? Sometimes I can't believe that even I would question doctors at the world reknowned Princess Margaret Hospital and am swayed by what I'm reading on the internet. Am I crazy or is this just a crazy world we live in?

Rhonda

Last edited by honda50; 02-26-2011 at 01:57 PM.

 
The following user gives a hug of support to honda50:
IADT3since2000 (02-26-2011)
Old 02-26-2011, 02:28 PM   #4
Inactive
(male)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Tall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB User
Re: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Just to help you understand why your doctor recommends that you wait until PSA rises to 5 or 10... No, it is NOT like a tree taking root. PSA is copiously produced by PC cells by activation of the androgen receptors. The androgen blockade may kill a small percentage of such cells, but most survive in a hibernating state where they don't produce PSA. PSA production precedes growth of the cancer by many years. In a study at Johns Hopkins of men with increases in PSA after RP, who did not have hormone treatment after RP, it took a median of eight years before metastatic disease developed. With hormone treatment, metastasis is of course delayed still further. And if he is a candidate for radiation, a cure may be possible, with or without neoadjuvant hormone treatment.

- Allen

 
Old 02-26-2011, 04:41 PM   #5
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Hi Rhonda and Allen,

The previous three posts are related, and I thought it would help if I set out my take on these issues. Some of this can be based on hard fact; some is opinion. I'll insert some thoughts in your post first, Allen, then in Rhonda's.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Allen View Post
Just to help you understand why your doctor recommends that you wait until PSA rises to 5 or 10... No, it is NOT like a tree taking root.
Some fortunate men have a PSA doubling time of more than a century. Clearly, for such men, the analogy of a tree taking root is not helpful. A better analogy would be the erosion of the Grand Canyon, starting from scratch. Unfortunately, for others of us with some high-risk case characteristics, the analogy seems valid to me. Each of us has to take our own stand on this. I was advised by one of the world's foremost prostate cancer pathologists that it was very risky for me, with my high-risk case, to let my PSA rise above 6. After a lot of thought, I decided that he was right, but that triple blockade would overcome that risk, at least for a number of years. So far, now in my twelfth year, I'm right, even though I have let my PSA rise to about 10 as the target for the end of my vacation period. Some doctors don't get alarmed until the PSA reaches 20 or even higher. My opinion - not firmly supported by fact - is that that is very risky for a man with a high risk case.

Quote:
PSA is copiously produced by PC cells by activation of the androgen receptors. The androgen blockade may kill a small percentage of such cells, but most survive in a hibernating state where they don't produce PSA.
Did you mean cancer cells instead of PSA, or both cancer cells and PSA? In either case, the doctors with long and deep experience in hormonal blockade whom I follow are convinced that thorough androgen blockade definitely kills a substantial proportion of cancer cells, but unfortunately not all of them, and some go dormant as Allen stated. That appears to be especially true of cells known as "prostate cancer stem cells." Fortunately, in that dormant state, they neither produce much PSA nor are they aggressive.

Quote:
PSA production precedes growth of the cancer by many years.
The doctors I follow would not consider that an accurate statement; they consider cancer growth and PSA production to be closely linked for most types of prostate cancer, excluding some Gleason 8 to 10 cancers and rare types. Please consider this evidence that convincingly demonstrates that at least in some circumstances the increase in PSA and growth are tightly linked. The evidence comes from the phenomenon known as "flare." Flare, a rise in PSA and accompanying growth of the cancer, often happens when a LHRH-agonist is given alone during the first couple of weeks after administration. Essentially, the LHRH-agonist (such as Lupron, Zoladex, Viadur, etc.) initially and for a couple of weeks results in a substantial rise in testosterone, and that, along with some increased production of DHT by conversion of a portion of that testosterone, causes cancer growth and the production of more PSA from both healthy and cancer cells. Flare is not a problem for most of us, but for someone with existing spinal mets, it can result in cancer growth that compresses the spinal cord, sometimes permanently crippling the patient. Similarly, LHRH antagonist drugs and surgical castration sharply reduce PSA and cancer growth, with the result that patients with painful bone mets often feel great relief within just hours. These phenomena are conclusively documented in medical literature.

Quote:
In a study at Johns Hopkins of men with increases in PSA after RP, who did not have hormone treatment after RP, it took a median of eight years before metastatic disease developed.
Allen, would you mind reviewing the risk characteristics of the men in that study? I'm familiar with Johns Hopkins research, and I firmly anticipate you will find that men with low-risk characteristics predominated (PSA <=10, up to stage 2a, Gleason <7). Dr. S. Freedland, then at Hopkins and now at Duke, did a neat study that predicted seriousness of recurrence based on three risk factors: PSA doubling time, a rise in PSA to 0.2 before three years from surgery versus at three years or later, and whether the cancer was Gleason 8-10 or lower. If you haven't seen that work, since updated, I'm sure you will find it interesting.

However, for a man with Irv's risk characteristics, that study indicates that aggressive treatment is appropriate.


Quote:
With hormone treatment, metastasis is of course delayed still further. And if he is a candidate for radiation, a cure may be possible, with or without neoadjuvant hormone treatment.

- Allen
The research clearly shows that some men do not need supportive hormonal therapy for their radiation to be successful. However, research also convincingly shows that many men do need it. Researchers have some clues as to who would benefit and who would likely not, but it is an ongoing process.

Rhonda, the following is from your post:


Quote:
The small problem is that I'm more swayed than Irv by triple blockade... But, what do I know, right? I'm just the patient's caregiver who is a big troublemaker.

And what if it doesn't work? How would I live with that? Here I am, a major influence in the life of Irv...and this, afterall is about his LIFE! He is more easily swayed by experts like Dr. Tannock, and, actually, how can I blame him? Sometimes I can't believe that even I would question doctors at the world reknowned Princess Margaret Hospital and am swayed by what I'm reading on the internet. Am I crazy or is this just a crazy world we live in?
That's a real life problem - a very practical issue. It's important that Irv buy in to his treatment, and authoritative doctors are intimidating but also comforting. It's so easy to turn over control to them, especially when they tell us they want us to do that. I have experienced the pull of that seductive appeal myself.

However, I urge you to continue your effort to convince Irv, if you can keep it up. Remember this: it's not just something on the Internet, it's actual medical research studies that are supporting your course. Take a look at that Japanese study with all the graphs, especially the stage III graph. You could discuss that with Irv, but make sure he knows there are folks like me that are convinced triple blockade will have much better outcomes, and that those studies were done before we knew much about countermeasures, such as countering bone density loss, which can be deadly. After all, even 40% success at five years is not that impressive. There are other similar studies that allow us to predict what will happen to many men on single drug blockade; it ain't pretty!

In the end, after you have done your best, you will be able to find greater peace.

Take care,

Jim

 
Old 02-26-2011, 08:32 PM   #6
Inactive
(male)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Tall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB User
Re: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Jim,
To answer your question...(sorry- I don't have time to cut and paste and add colors, but you can find it)

That "eight year to metastasis" figure is almost entirely (81%) among intermediate and high grade patients who failed RP.

You can read the full text study through the following link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10235151

Rhonda,
I don't think there is anyone who doubts that neoadjuvant androgen suppression enhances the cell kill of RT for locally advanced PC. But have you seen any study that shows that a triple blockade is any more useful than what Irv's doctor recommends in a case like his, and if it is, is the marginal benefit worth pursuing doctors all over Canada for? Irv is going for the cure, as I understand it, not just management with androgen deprivation. His principle treatment will be RT, with the androgen deprivation there to increase the odds. I agree that finasteride has minor side effects, and if I were the doctor I would definitely have given you a scrip for your peace of mind if nothing else, but since he won't prescribe it, consider how much is it likely to increase the benefit of his RT treatment? If the RT is a cannonball, the finasteride is a flyswatter. I think one has to pick one's battles. If you feel that finasteride is important, you can find sources outside of Canada.

With all due respect to the expertise of the people, like myself, who mete out advice on the internet, it is your doctor and not any of us who will be your partner through it all. None of us has the real world experience of working with the number and wide variety of cases that the doctors at PMH have. Personally, I found the most prestigious doctors I could find (who often have horrible bedside manner!), and used the internet as a source of supplemental information and to find questions to ask them (always keeping in mind that they are human too). Every case is different and statistics never predict individual outcomes. At a certain point, you may find well-meaning advice, including mine, to be counter-productive.

- Allen

 
Old 02-26-2011, 09:52 PM   #7
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

...but the tough question...How do we get that Avodart, especially since it isn't even FDA approved for prostate cancer?

...and even if we managed to get it, like from a reliable online website, then who would agree to monitor it for Irv?

I'm really feeling at a loss.

I need help now. I don't know which way to turn and who to turn to.

Rhonda

Last edited by honda50; 02-26-2011 at 09:54 PM.

 
Old 02-26-2011, 10:14 PM   #8
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Sorry Allen. I didn't see your last response. Actually, the medical team at PMH advised strongly against radiation therapy for Irv. The reason is two-fold. First, the chance of it having any benefit at this point is very low, less than 20% and the risk, in light of Irv's history of ulcerative colitis, might be very high.

There is a radiation oncologist at Sunnybrook who believes that Irv can still have radiation but Irv doesn't want to take the chance of ending up flaring up his colitis to the point where he ends up in the hospital for weeks and/or ends up with a colostomy bag for the rest of his life, with such a small chance, if any, of a cure.

So, where does that leave us? Would single blockade be enough to keep him around to see his 60th birthday? I really don't want to lose him that soon....What's the best chance that for the longest survival period for him? What should we do? I'd love to put all my faith in these doctors. They are the experts I want to rely on...Why then is all of the information so conflicting...and why have the only men who I know who've been on triple blockade enjoying many years of survival, while I hear of others on single blockade who aren't doing as well at all?

Rhonda

 
The following user gives a hug of support to honda50:
Tall Allen (02-26-2011)
Old 02-26-2011, 10:31 PM   #9
Inactive
(male)
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 689
Tall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB UserTall Allen HB User
Re: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Sorry Rhonda, I missed that Irv didn't qualify for RT. Most doctors are happy to give you names of people they have treated -- they may be good to talk to. As Jim said, double blockade is increasingly popular and there are many studies behind it. If you can talk him into that, getting finasteride from abroad is really pretty easy and not very expensive. I get many medications that way because they are so expensive in the US, and the quality seems to be very good. I even checked the purity of some, and was delighted.
- Allen

 
Old 02-26-2011, 11:21 PM   #10
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Thanks, Allen. I think the only problem with that would be to find a doctor who will agree to monitor Irv's health while on it, even though he may not approve.

 
Old 02-27-2011, 03:19 AM   #11
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Hi Rhonda

I still would suggest you to have Irv on hormonal treatment as your doctor’s advice.

Your comment regarding monotherapy (“single blockade who aren't doing as well at all”) is not totally correct. There are in fact many guys on single blockade as me doing very well, and some for long periods of time in continuous as well as in intermittent modalities.

I believe that your thoughts are based on Jim’s posts. He is a good example of a survivor in IADT3 doing well on triple blockade, and he is a fervent fan of his own success. I see in many of his posts a sort of bias in regards to triple blockade, even though, I thing of his heart full good intention when advising us in our status. He is just describing what he most believes from his findings and we should be thankful to him for the time he spends in answering our appeals. However, mistaking him for a doctor is an error.

As Allen comments, the advice you receive from us in the internet should not take place over comments from reliable doctors. We can be suspicious of physicians practice and have seen many reasons to do such, but we should educate ourselves to understand what is going behind their opinions before contesting them. However we are not medical experts (as Jim several times have commented too) and our knowledge is limited.
You need to find a doctor who you can trust to follow Irv’s case, but do not confuse trust with “slavery”. Meaning to have someone that follows all your “amateurial” believes.

Wishing the best to you both.
Baptista

Last edited by Baptista; 02-27-2011 at 04:35 AM. Reason: Complete comment

 
Old 02-27-2011, 09:05 AM   #12
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Okay...gotcha. I do understand that advocates here aren't doctors, as is the same with Chuck Maack who's convictions to IADT3 are at least as strong as Jim's.

So, on that note, do you think we made a mistake insisting on starting hormonal therapy immediately, even though Dr Tannock thinks that Irv should've waited?

And, if he continues, do you think Irv should just do the single blockade as would be the advice of Dr. Tannock?

Now I'm seriously completely confused. I don't know where the line is drawn between going by the advice of the doctor and advocating for oneself. If, in fact, we should follow the expert's advice, then what is there to advocate?

All of that being said, Irv will definitely be on hormonal therapy of one kind or another....but what protocol will give him the greatest chance at longevity is the major question.

Please keep your comments coming.

Rhonda

Last edited by honda50; 02-27-2011 at 09:06 AM.

 
Old 02-28-2011, 01:37 AM   #13
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Quote:
Originally Posted by honda50 View Post
Okay...gotcha. I do understand that advocates here aren't doctors, as is the same with Chuck Maack who's convictions to IADT3 are at least as strong as Jim's.

So, on that note, do you think we made a mistake insisting on starting hormonal therapy immediately, even though Dr Tannock thinks that Irv should've waited?

And, if he continues, do you think Irv should just do the single blockade as would be the advice of Dr. Tannock?

Now I'm seriously completely confused. I don't know where the line is drawn between going by the advice of the doctor and advocating for oneself. If, in fact, we should follow the expert's advice, then what is there to advocate?

All of that being said, Irv will definitely be on hormonal therapy of one kind or another....but what protocol will give him the greatest chance at longevity is the major question.

Please keep your comments coming.

Rhonda
Rhonda,
I think that the best advice comes from your doctor. In one of your threads you commented that one of the doctors wanted to have Irv’s on LHRH agonist. This is a good start. He can move to another protocol later.
Since November ’10 that I am on monotherapy (antiagonist for one month plus Eligard 6-month shot) and I am just fine. My PSA is down 80% (1.0 to 0.18 in two month), and my testosterone is in castration levels. From this initiation, I will then move to maybe ADT2 or ADT3, once the results are out.

Waiting is not a good idea for Irv’s case because he has signals of recurrence.
While on LHRH agonist he can research for an oncologist you trust, so that you can get a “better” opinion on RT or other HT protocols (ADT2, ADT3, IADT, etc.), and have peace of mind.

Eligard is equal to Lupron, both would do the job, and if not satisfied (symptoms or no effect), then Irv can change drugs without being affected.

I wish you the best.
Baptista

 
Old 02-28-2011, 07:15 AM   #14
Senior Member
(male)
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: WI
Posts: 117
Gleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB UserGleason9 HB User
Re: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

Hi Rhonda,

I think it would be worth the money for you and Irv talk to one of the IADT3 experts. You will than actually be talking to the doctors themselves who have treated thousands of cases. Yes, it will cost you a bit of cash, but it may give you the perspective and confidence you need to deal with the medical issues you face. I know I've said this before, and I've refrained from repeating it, but it seems you just keep getting the run-around, and I'd so like you to get the peace of mind you deserve. I won't mention this again, as it tends to be like a skipping record.

Best wishes to you both,

Tom

 
Old 02-28-2011, 09:06 AM   #15
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: Clearly not going to be easy getting Avodart

REVOLT OF THE FLY SWATTERS

Hi Rhonda and Allen (and all of us who are interested),

Thanks for that citation in your post #6, Allen. It's on my list to check - kind of overwhelmed these days.

I'm responding mainly because there is an important understanding to convey about the role of finasteride, and your post #6, Allen, reflects a different and less encouraging view that is very common among doctors with whom I have talked who are not expert in hormonal therapy. (I have not talked to him, but that group also includes the justly revered Dr. Patrick Walsh of Johns Hopkins. We need to remember that we revere him for his surgical pioneering, surgical research, and his peerless dedication, but not for his knowledge of hormonal therapy, which has at least one gaping hole in understanding.)

I'll insert some thoughts in green in an excerpt from your post.


Quote:
[Your question to Rhonda]But have you seen any study that shows that a triple blockade is any more useful than what Irv's doctor recommends in a case like his, and if it is, is the marginal benefit worth pursuing doctors all over Canada for?
First let's talk about what Irv's doctor is planning. He is proposing a short course of antiandrogen and continuous LHRH-agonist medication for Irv's case that clearly has some challenging characteristics.

That course of therapy has a good chance of working for a limited number of years for someone like Irv; when you look at the Japanese study of hormonal blockade mentioned earlier in this thread, it appears that around 40% of patients of stage III patients do well up to five years, with 60% recurring before that. Looking at the graph, I suspect that percentage of success will fall rather steeply after the five year point. Actually, the trend line is falling at a clearly steeper rate from around 67% success at nearly the four year point to around 43% as the patient approaches the five year point. While this Hinotsu ... Yamanaka study from 2007 is just one study, the results strike me as similar to what I've seen repeatedly in looking at studies for hormonal blockade. Believe me, I've looked at such studies as if my life depended on it, so it's not a casual interest.

On the good side, even after such blockade fails, a study I find credible (Oefelein, Aggarwal and Resnick, Wayne State U.) indicates that survival after failure averages (median) 40 months for men with bone mets at the time of failure and 68 months for men without bone mets at that time. (This is not recognized by many doctors as they unfortunately use studies for their views that are based on artificial, later points from which they count survival. I can explain if anyone wants to read about it.) Therefore, you can project a decent shot at 5 years of success on blockade plus about 4 or 5 years more of survival from this time. That gets us to around the ten year point or more for about half the patients, with about half not living that long. Moreover, those figures are for men treated quite a few years in the past, and survival now would almost certainly be considerably better.

Okay, now lets' look at triple therapy, involving finasteride, though today the experts prefer Avodart as the third element for most men. Your point about the shortage of formal, peer-reviewed, published medical studies is a good one, unfortunately. However, there is at least one publication in a major journal for double blockade with finasteride maintenance (Scholz, Lam, Strum and colleagues), and there have been several impressive poster presentations at conferences. The Primer has documented preliminary research comparing triple with combined (two drug) blockade. Several leading medical oncologists who specialize in prostate cancer have stated their strong preference for triple blockade in challenging cases. There is a multitude of patients like me (most with less challenging cases) who have done very well on intermittent triple blockade with maintenance. A clinical trial is now in progress to test whether adding Avodart can restore success to men who are failing after combined blockade (Dr. Oliver Sartor). What this feels like is the grass roots revolution that is now occuring in the Arab world.

You are visualizing the benefit of adding finasteride as marginal, if there is even any benefit. (Of course, Irv's doctor is not planning continuous antiandrogen therapy; but that shortcoming should not be difficult to overcome as such continuous therapy is a staple treatment among medical oncologists and even many surgeons who manage blockade.) So are many doctors visualizing it as marginal who are not that familiar with advanced hormonal therapy. In sharp contrast, I am convinced that we would not be seeing the excitement that we are seeing in the survivor community and among leading doctors for marginal benefit. The graph for a small study in the then Strum-Scholz practice gives us a tantalizing view of what we think is the power of intermittent (or one time) triple blockade with finasteride maintenance. The chart is Figure 60 in my original edition of the Primer, and it's titled "IAD3 versus IAD2 (PSAR Patients [meaning those whose cancer had recurred after surger, radiation, or both] - Comparison of Time to Reach Biological Endpoint". The goal was to keep coasting until reaching a therapy restart point after stopping the heavy duty drugs - the ADT2 part of ADT2 and ADT3. In other words, the goal was for the patients to have as long a vacation as was thought reasonable at that time.

The end of the race was set as a rise in PSA to 5.0 for the IADT2 group, but to just 2.5 for the IADT3 group. That handicap was done because it was thought at the time that finasteride might be artificially lowering the PSA by half, which, if true, would make 2.5 comparable to 5. (Now it is believed that there is actual benefit to the patient from the lower PSA achieved by the 5-ARI drugs finasteride and Avodart.)

Okay, time for results: The graph shows the IAD2 patients gradually needing to restart therapy as results were tracked for up to about 77 months. The ever-useful median point for restarting therapy - half doing better, half not as well - occured at 24 months for the IADT2 group (though 25% managed to coast for over five years, with the last patient making it to the 77 month point (eyeballing these months from the graph). In happy contrast, the IADT3 patients had a slower rate of declining success, with more than half still not needing to restart therapy at the 60 month point (FIVE YEARS!). It looks like about 55% or so were still successful at that point, and the results from 2000, perhaps updated to late 2001 or 2002, were not published for longer follow-up. Also, those who were not "successful" on this graph were not failures in the sense that hormonal therapy was not working; instead, like me, their "lack of success" with one round of triple therapy simply meant that they needed to initiate another round, with at least several successful rounds typically possible.

The bottom line:

IADT2 - 50% of men needed to restart therapy by the two year point (24 months)

IADT3 - more than 50% of men were still enjoying a vacation at the five year point (60 months).

To those of us whose options have been narrowed down to hormonal therapy, results like that are enormously encouraging!

The Scholz - Strum - Lam series of patients continues to be studied, and I'm confident we will see further results at some point.

The Tucker, Leibowitz, Roundy presentation to a special joint meeting on prostate cancer in Orlando, 2005, also has some highly encouraging results, but the authors are still struggling to tie down details of patient follow-up that will meet the standards for publication in a major peer-reviewed publication. I'm dearly hoping they succeed, as the results indicate stunning success. However, the group they discuss has not had prior therapy; they are patients who elected to go straight to maintained triple hormonal therapy despite having low-risk cases in many instances. It is important to remember that doctors can become overenthusiastic about their results, perhaps overlooking the failures that need to be counted as well as the successes; the peer-review publication process, though not perfect, is good protection to make sound data more likely. That's why I really want to see that formal publication of results from this series.


Quote:
.... I agree that finasteride has minor side effects, and if I were the doctor I would definitely have given you a scrip for your peace of mind if nothing else... If the RT is a cannonball [later clarified that Irv is not a candidate for RT], the finasteride is a flyswatter. I think one has to pick one's battles.
Here is a really key concept: finasteride is just a flyswatter in some approaches, though that is probably all some men need to boost their odds of success. I use finasteride when I go off the heavy duty drugs, during my vacation period, based on the now published research (Scholz, Strum, Lam and colleagues) that shows markedly longer vacation periods for men using a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor drug (finasteride or Avodart) during the vacation period. I'm convinced I'm experiencing greater success with finasteride as maintenance, but, it's also very clear that finasteride alone is not sufficient to hold back my prostate cancer. In fact, toward the ends of my vacations, the cancer is roaring back at a short doubling time of around five months. At this point the finasteride is more like the flyswatter. It's like facing the bully alone after your big, strong brother has gone elsewhere.

However, used in combination with an LHRH-agonist and an antiandrogen, finasteride or Avodart create a synergy that is powerful! Here's how we think it works, based on a combination of animal, lab and human prostate cancer research. While adequately done use of an LHRH-agonist stops all testicular production of testosterone that fuels the cancer and converts to the more potent DHT fuel, and while antiandrogens like bicalutamide block the androgen receptor fueling ports to some extent for the indirectly (not by testes) testosterone and DHT, bicalutamide does not tightly grip those fueling ports. In fact, if there is DHT around, the DHT often muscles out the bicalutamide, and thereby the fueling of the cancer cells continues. (The new drug Abiraterone, not yet approved, appears to do a basically similar job in a better way, but that's another story.)

Enter lowly finasteride, or lowly Avodart. They don't block the androgen receptor, the cancer cell's fueling port. Nor are these lightweights any good at stopping testicular production of testosterone. But, they are very good at drastically reducing the amount of DHT that is produced from testosterone! Voila! Therefore, the thinking is that, by reducing the DHT that otherwise would successfully compete with the bicalutamide, the otherwise lowly 5-ARI drugs make the bicalutamide (antiandrogen) arm of blockade far more successful!

Fly swatter no more!

Take care,

Jim

Last edited by IADT3since2000; 02-28-2011 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Added point about "lack of success" shortly after posting.

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
"This disease is going to kill you" honda50 Cancer: Prostate 14 02-15-2011 09:20 AM
Vacation from triple hormonal blockade going extraordinarily well! IADT3since2000 Cancer: Prostate 5 06-25-2010 08:58 AM
Avodart masking/shrinking PC tumors, making detection more difficult? ralphlund Cancer: Prostate 6 06-13-2010 04:45 PM
New To The Health Board.. I'm Going For Biopsy & Totally Confused Please Help johnn66 Cancer: Prostate 11 07-28-2008 03:20 PM
avodart mikey15 Cancer: Prostate 3 06-11-2008 06:14 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 (5)

Site Wide Totals

teteri66 (1136), MSJayhawk (941), Apollo123 (856), janewhite1 (823), Titchou (770), Gabriel (743), ladybud (667), sammy64 (666), midwest1 (655), BlueSkies14 (610)



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM.



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