Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / August 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Good news and bad news

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bruce T - 29 Aug 2003 02:12 GMT
Hi All

I'm in the process of deciding on which type of treatment is best for
me (PSA 6.7; Free PSA 19%; Gleason 6; Stage T1c). My urologist
referred me to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to see if radioactive
treatment would be a better option than surgery.

Saw the radiologist today at Sunnybrook to discuss treatment options.
He felt that mortality and morbidity rates for the radioactive
treatment options are about the same as those of surgery – but
admitted that he did not have hard data to support this conclusion.
Together, after exploring the alternatives, we decided that surgery is
a better option in my case. The size of my prostate (60 grams -- as a
result of benign prostate enlargement or "BPH") is a major
complicating factor.

This is too large for "seeds" and the methods to shrink the prostate
beforehand were not acceptable to me. For the same reason, HDR
brachytherapy was not recommended. That left external beam radiation
treatment (Sunnybrook uses the 3D conformal method) and the doctor
felt that this approach would be effective in treating the cancer and
had a very high chance of completely curing it. The "however", and
it's a big "however" for me, is that EBRT would not reduce the size of
the prostate and would thus leave me with all the symptoms I have from
the BPH. In fact, he felt that the radiation would make the symptoms
worse for a period of time during and after the treatment as the
non-cancerous prostate tissues are irritated by the radiation. These
symptoms are very annoying and I certainly would like them corrected.

So the bad news is that radioactive treatments are not the best option
for me. But he did have some good news…

He examined me (via DRE), reviewed my file and advised that the PCa
was at an early stage. Said I could probably go on for 10 years before
noticing any symptoms. Of course, the BPH symptoms would still be
there. He definitely did not recommend "watchful waiting". But I do
have time to make a considered decision.

He also said that the symptoms I am experiencing are definitely from
BPH and not from the cancer. That certainly was a relief! I had really
worried that the increasing severity of the symptoms was the result of
the cancer growing.

Even tho I don't have much choice of treatment, I find that to be good
news. No possibility of worrying about having made the wrong choice.

So, there it is. Now I need to determine if my urologist has the
skills and track record to do a good job for me. I think he is the
right guy. But I am meeting with him next week to answer those
questions.

Regards to all. Without all your comments and experience I would never
have had the facts to have such a good conversation with the
radiologist today!!

Bruce
Leonard Evens - 29 Aug 2003 05:20 GMT
> Hi All
>
> I'm in the process of deciding on which type of treatment is best for
> me (PSA 6.7; Free PSA 19%; Gleason 6; Stage T1c). My urologist
> referred me to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to see if radioactive
> treatment would be a better option than surgery.

With  your diagnosis, age would be a very important factor in deciding
on a treatment plan.   For example, if you are over 70, even watchful
waiting in some circumstances might make sense, but of course a lot
depends on the details.   Also, if you are over 70, radiation may make
more sense and if you are under 60, surgery may make more sense.

> Saw the radiologist today at Sunnybrook to discuss treatment options.
> He felt that mortality and morbidity rates for the radioactive
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> Bruce

Signature

Leonard Evens      len@math.northwestern.edu      847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208

Bruce T - 30 Aug 2003 00:29 GMT
Leonard,

I am 63 and in reasonable physical shape with no other medical
problems.  Watchful waiting is an attractive option, but I don't want
to chance it.  So I will be treated soon.

Bruce

> With  your diagnosis, age would be a very important factor in deciding
> on a treatment plan.   For example, if you are over 70, even watchful
> waiting in some circumstances might make sense, but of course a lot
> depends on the details.   Also, if you are over 70, radiation may make
> more sense and if you are under 60, surgery may make more sense.
Pee2 - 29 Aug 2003 14:08 GMT
I also had BPH.  I elected for the RRP since the removal of the prostate
also solved the BPH problems.  Hank
> Hi All
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Bruce
jk - 29 Aug 2003 15:46 GMT
> Hi All
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Bruce

 As far as I can read Bruce you had no bad news. Get it out, and be cured!
Sometimes having lots of aternatives is a curse. I could have done anything.
Whoever you see thinks his specialty is the thing to do.  Read my 1 year
anniversary post...

Signature

JK Sinrod NY
Sinrod Stained Glass
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories

Heather - 29 Aug 2003 19:37 GMT
JK......reread Bruce's post.  You missed two points.  His urologist sent
him to the radiation oncologist to see if radiation would be better than
his surgery method.

And secondly, the radiation oncologist, together with Bruce, decided
that surgery was his better option, given all the facts.  So in this
case each doctor was looking out for what was best for Bruce...and were
NOT recommending their own specialty.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Heather

> > Hi All
> >
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> Whoever you see thinks his specialty is the thing to do.  Read my 1 year
> anniversary post...
Bill Denton - 29 Aug 2003 16:35 GMT
"That left external beam radiation treatment (Sunnybrook uses the 3D
conformal method) and the doctor felt that this approach would be
effective in treating the cancer and had a very high chance of
completely curing it. The "however", and it's a big "however" for me,
is that EBRT would not reduce the size of the prostate and would thus
leave me with all the symptoms I have from the BPH."

Teach me something about RT - does the radiation not completely kill
the prostate gland? If so, doesn't it eventally atrophy away
(relieving your BPH)? If not, how can it be a permanent cure?

This is somewhat interesting - I just learned that a cousin-in-law had
a course of RT although he had no cancer. I couldn't get the real dope
but I assume he had extensive neoplasia or something. Prophylactic RT
- has anyone heard of that?

Bill Denton
RP 2/12/02
Memphis
Bruce T - 30 Aug 2003 00:08 GMT
> I have read that cancer cells are more sensitive to radiation than
normal cells.  Therefore I would think that the cancer cells could all
be killed, but many normal prostate cells would be left alive and
functioning.  I would think that is why, after RT, PSA falls to a
nadir that is greater than 0.0 and why the prostate does not reduce in
size.  I exepct that with BPH, those remaining normal cells, over
time, could continue to expand and cause even greater BPH effects.

Dr. Morton definately said that RT will not cure my BPH symptoms --
but I did not ask him these further questions about why that happens.

Bruce

"That left external beam radiation treatment (Sunnybrook uses the 3D
> conformal method) and the doctor felt that this approach would be
> effective in treating the cancer and had a very high chance of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> RP 2/12/02
> Memphis
Fndocampo - 30 Aug 2003 17:29 GMT
I Ithink HDR would be a good option for you. I understand that they can  treat
large prostates.

Check out this web page:

www.cetmc.com

Good luck,

Fernando
Heather - 30 Aug 2003 18:39 GMT
Hola Fernando......

I thought so too, but Bruce lives in the Toronto area, and saw Ron's
doctor and he said he didn't recommend HDR for him or seeding.

Bruce......I assume that is because you have a 'big wonker', to use your
very descriptive phrasing (G).........is that so?  I know that HDR can
be used where seeding can't be.......such as a higher Gleason and so on.

I guess for seeding you would need 3 times the normal amount of seeds,
and that the human body can't handle that.  But HDR delivers a much
higher dose to the cancer cells than conventional external
radiation.......so that has left me wondering why you were not suitable
for that.

And Fernando......getting ready for those 'darling preteens' next week?
LOL!!

Buena suerte, mi amigo.

(I hope Babelfish translated that rightly and I am not propositioning
you or something, VBG........Ron is outside so I couldn't ask him)

Heather

> I Ithink HDR would be a good option for you. I understand that they can  treat
> large prostates.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Fernando
Richard Jordan - 31 Aug 2003 03:11 GMT
   In Ontario OHIP won't cover seeding if the prostate is above a certain
size. I can't remember for sure but I think it is 50 cc. This is because
covering the complete gland would be difficult in most cases because some
would more than likely be hidden behind the pubic bones making complete
coverage difficult.

       Up here when we are referred to a cancer centre usually the
urologist and radiation people are working as a team and have no vested
(read financial) interest in the treatment. They are there for the patient
first and foremost.

Ric
Guelph
Heather - 31 Aug 2003 04:13 GMT
Thanks Ric......I seem to remember that from one of your previous posts.

Btw, I wrote to the Health Reporter (Judy Gerstel) at the Toronto Star
because she had an article about 3 weeks ago on a person who was
diagnosed with Pca and was stating that he had to decide between
'radiation and surgery'........nothing about seeding or HDR.  I hope she
follows up on it.

And I totally agree with your last paragraph.  That has been our
experience too.

Cheers......Heather

>     In Ontario OHIP won't cover seeding if the prostate is above a certain
> size. I can't remember for sure but I think it is 50 cc. This is because
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Ric
> Guelph
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.