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 / October 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Androgen Ablation Response Varies in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Neil Simpson - 11 Oct 2004 02:58 GMT
Androgen Ablation Response Varies in Metastatic Prostate Cancer

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) Sept 27 - Prostate cancer patients who undergo
androgen ablation after radical prostatectomy failure appear to survive
longer than similar patients in whom primary radiation has failed,
according to a new study.

In the August issue of the Journal of Urology, Dr. Gregory P. Swanson of
Cancer Care Northwest, Spokane, Washington and colleagues point out that
despite the widespread use of androgen ablation for metastatic prostate
cancer, "detailed evaluation of response to treatment for failure after
surgery or radiation is lacking."

To shed more light on the matter, the researchers followed 94 patients
in whom primary radiation therapy had failed and 67 in whom radical
prostatectomy had failed. All underwent androgen ablation. Follow-up
lasted for as long as 29 years.

Significantly more patients in the radiation group (78%) died of
prostate cancer than did patients in the prostatectomy group (63%).

Of those in the radiation group with local failure alone, 63% died of
cancer at median of 5.03 years. In the surgery group, 50% of such
patients died at a median of 9.83 years.

In total, 93% of the radiation patients with distant metastases died of
cancer in a median of 2.34 years. In the corresponding surgery group,
the proportion was 50.0% at a median of 3.27 years.

Should these findings be confirmed, the researchers conclude that "this
would be a significant consideration for future studies of patients in
whom primary therapy fails."

J Urol 2004;172:525-528.
Frank and Rose - 11 Oct 2004 03:43 GMT
How old were they when they started the Androgen? More surgery people
are younger than those having radiation from what I have
noticed.Wouldn't that  affect the result?To give jst average length of
life is not too meaninful unless you have some info on at what age they
actually live to.Or am I wrong? FAR
Leonard Evens - 11 Oct 2004 15:10 GMT
> How old were they when they started the Androgen? More surgery people
> are younger than those having radiation from what I have
> noticed.Wouldn't that  affect the result?To give jst average length of
> life is not too meaninful unless you have some info on at what age they
> actually live to.Or am I wrong? FAR

That is a reasonable point, but it might work in the opposite direction.
 Older  patients are more likely to die of other causes, so they won't
be listed as "failures".   But a related point is that in the past, and
occasionally today, radiation was used often when surgery was not
indicated, so the radiation patients sharted off with a greater
likelihood of recurrence.   In principle the researchers should have
compensated for that, but they may not have done so adequately.
Leonard Evens - 11 Oct 2004 15:06 GMT
> Androgen Ablation Response Varies in Metastatic Prostate Cancer
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> would be a significant consideration for future studies of patients in
> whom primary therapy fails."

As usual, as lay people, we shouldn't jump to conclusions on the basis
of such a study.  It really requires  a professional to evaluate the
significance of such a result, and of course it would have to be
confirmed by other studies.   One point to consider is that radiation
was not very effective in the past.  Current techniques are thought to
be much more effective and all the evidence is that failure rates are
similar to those for surgery for something like 10-12 years.  Beyond
that there isn't adequate data because the current techniques have not
been in use long enough.   A second issue is that the definition of
failure is different for radiation and RP.  With RP, any significant PSA
indicates a biochemical failure.  with radiation, the PSA reachesa nadir
and stays there, but it seldom approaches undetectable levels.  More
recent methods come closer to achieving very low values.

> J Urol 2004;172:525-528.
 
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.