Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2004
Lastest prostate cancer Treatment, high intensity focused ultrasound
|
|
Thread rating:  |
c palmer - 11 Nov 2004 07:36 GMT Thursday 11 November 2004
New way to beat prostate cancer By David Derbyshire
A revolutionary technique using powerful sound waves to melt away prostate cancer without distressing side effects is about to start trials in Britain, offering hope to the 30,000 men diagnosed with the disease each year. Doctors believe the treatment, which uses high intensity focused ultrasound (Hifu), is as effective as conventional surgery or radiotherapy, but with far less risk of impotence and incontinence. Surgeon Mark Emberton with the ultrasound probe It is also cheaper, less invasive and can be finished in less than three hours under a local or regional anaesthetic. The trial involving 150 men, which is due to start in January, follows promising results from international studies. A Japanese survey of 132 men treated with ultrasound for early and medium stage prostate cancer found that almost 70 per cent were free from disease after five years. Only 22 per cent complained of problems with sexual function.
Conventional surgery and radiotherapy have similar survival rates - but can leave more than two thirds of men impotent. If the trial is a success it could pave the way for the first national prostate cancer screening.
Many doctors object to screening because the side effects of any subsequent treatment are so unpleasant. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among British men. Although the disease is very treatable if caught early enough, most men discover they have it only when it is in its later stages. About 10,000 die every year.
Mark Emberton, a consultant urologist at the Royal Free and University College London School of Medicine, who is leading the trial, said: "Men with early prostate cancer are faced with a difficult choice about treatments. A lot of men with low-risk cancer are just actively monitored. "In many people, it's a slow-growing disease. But in men who are young or who have an aggressive form of the disease, there is an obvious need to contemplate treatment.
"The benefit of Hifu is that it is non-invasive - there are no cuts and no radiation. It can also be done as a day-case procedure."
The person administering the treatment will not even have to be a trained surgeon, who needs 15 years of experience before embarking on conventional surgery for cancer of the prostate.
Mr Emberton said that, potentially, a skilled nurse could learn the procedure in months.
Hifu uses high energy ultrasound generated from a probe inserted in the rectum under a local anaesthetic. The sound waves are focused on sections of the prostate which heat up to 90C in a second - destroying tissue almost instantly.
Using a computer screen, the surgeon guides the ultrasound beam away from nerves essential for erections and for bladder and bowel control. Ultrasound can be used only to treat single tumours or large parts of a tumour. It cannot treat advanced cancers which have spread to different parts of the body. The sound waves cannot pass through bone or air, restricting the types of cancers that can be treated.
The trial, which will involve hospitals in London and Oxford, will include men with early and medium stage prostate cancer, where the disease has not spread. They will be followed up for five years. Nick Stevens, the managing director of UKHIFU, the company co-sponsoring the trial, said 6,000 patients around the world had been treated. "It's pain-free, unlike most surgery. It's convenient, you don't stay in hospital, and there's no need for a blood transfusion," he said.
"We expect from past studies, including the five-year study in Japan, that around 80 per cent of men would retain erectile function. We hope for around 85 to 90 per cent efficacy - possibly even higher.". A conference in London next week organised by the Prostate Cancer Charity will discuss the new technique and other approaches such as cryotherapy, which kills tumours with frozen gas. John Neate, the PCC chief executive, will call for change in the way the cancer is tackled, including specialist teams to manage the care of men from diagnosis to treatment.
Dr Chris Hiley, a spokesman for the charity, welcomed the trial, but said it was too early to talk of "revolutionary treatments".
The Government is also expected to announce more details of its strategy for tackling the disease. Factfile
The prostate is a golfball-sized gland in the pelvis and one function is to produce prostatic fluid, one of the five main types of fluid in semen.
Almost all prostate cancers occur in men over 50. Although treatable if caught early, half of men diagnosed have their cancer discovered at the late stage. Symptoms include a frequent need to urinate, especially at night; problems urinating; genital pain; lower back pain; blood in urine; pain in the hips or pelvis; and difficulty in achieving or keeping an erection.
If doctors believe that the cancer is slow-growing and has not spread outside the prostate, they may actively monitor the disease rather than treat it. Men can live with the disease, symptom-free, for decades.
If the disease is diagnosed in a younger man or if it is aggressive, surgery or radiotherapy are used to kill the cancerous cells.
For men under 70, surgery is usually the preferred option. The most common kind is a radical prostatectomy in which the whole gland is removed. Around 70 per cent have no signs of cancer 10 years after surgery but a similar number suffer from impotence after treatment.
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
Leonard Evens - 11 Nov 2004 22:21 GMT > Thursday 11 November 2004 > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > medium stage prostate cancer found that almost 70 per cent were free > from disease after five years. Results can depend on at which stage the cancer was caught. But with modern diagnostic techniques, 70 percent freedom from disease at 5 years is not terribly impressive.
> Only 22 per cent complained of problems > with sexual function. Impotence is highly dependent on age. For relatively young men, good surgeons can achieve rates comparable to this with radical prostatectomy. If they are doing this for men over 65 or 70, then there results are impressive.
> Conventional surgery and radiotherapy have similar survival rates - but > can leave more than two thirds of men impotent. Again that depends on age.
> If the trial is a success it could pave the way for the first national > prostate cancer screening. [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is > invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." I P Freely - 11 Nov 2004 23:06 GMT Don't forget that a procedure's effectiveness isn't validated until it has a broad 15-year data base. Do we REALLY want to experiment with our lives while proven alternatives exist if our life expectancy otherwise > 15 years?
I.P.
Steve Kramer - 13 Nov 2004 11:24 GMT I suspect they once said that about RRP. Can you imagine the first guy who was told, "You will be slit from penis to belly button. We will reach down through the entire width of your body and cut your prostate out. When we're finished, we will stitch the rest of your urethra directly to your bladder. When we finish, you may not be able to have any kind of sex, you may not be able to pee, you may not be able to stop peeing, and you penis will be too short to stop from peeing on your zipper in any case."
 Signature Prostate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (3 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non illegitimi carborundum
> Don't forget that a procedure's effectiveness isn't validated until it has a > broad 15-year data base. Do we REALLY want to experiment with our lives > while proven alternatives exist if our life expectancy otherwise > 15 years? > > I.P. Canada Bob - 13 Nov 2004 17:38 GMT Hello Steve & I.P.
> I suspect they once said that about RRP. Can you imagine the first guy who > was told, "You will be slit from penis to belly button. Well said Steve...
Now for I.P.'s bit...
>Don't forget that a procedure's effectiveness isn't validated until it has >a broad 15-year data base. Do we REALLY want to experiment with our lives >while proven alternatives exist if our life expectancy otherwise 15 >years? The "experiment" with HIFU has been going on for well over 15 years I.P. with some very impressive results, {how am I going to say this}, just because it's not being done in the US doesn't mean to say that the rest of the World has ignored HIFU.
I had Cryo, but I wish I could have had HIFU...
Note that you don't see many posts from folks who have had one type of procedure wishing they could have had another, maybe that tells you something about the way people think {if it's my dog/car/country, it's the best dog/car/country}.
Canada Bob.
JerryW - 13 Nov 2004 18:00 GMT Bob,
You make a good point, especially for people whose options may have been limited by factors beyond their control.
However, it could also be that some of us spent a lot of time and effort researching the options available to us and decided not to spend a lot of time and effort and emotional angst second-guessing that decision, once made. I, for one, don't necessarily think my treatment option is the best (as in dog/car/country) for everyone. I do believe it was the best for me at the time, and I've pretty much left it at that.
 Signature JerryW jweindel at flash dot net
2/11/04 PSA 2.6, Suspicious DRE (age 62) 2/23/04 Biopsy: Gleason 3+4=7, T2a, left lobe 5/18/04 RRP, Path: Gleason 4+3=7, T2c, both lobes Tumor organ-contained; lymph nodes clear, seminal vesicles clear Both nerve bundles spared 7/13/04 PSA <0.1 10/12/04 PSA <0.1
> Hello Steve & I.P. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Canada Bob. Canada Bob - 15 Nov 2004 23:56 GMT Hello Jerry...
> You make a good point, especially for people whose options may have been > limited by factors beyond their control. Thanks.
> However, it could also be that some of us spent a lot of time and effort > researching the options available to us and decided not to spend a lot of > time and effort and emotional angst second-guessing that decision, once > made. I, for one, don't necessarily think my treatment option is the best > (as in dog/car/country) for everyone. I do believe it was the best for me at > the time, and I've pretty much left it at that. I understand that Jerry, and I'm glad no offence has been taken by anyone, but...
What I was trying to say is that "just because we each chose our options, it doesn't mean it was the best option for us", even though we'd ALL like to think we backed the best horse.
I too spent many weeks, well... actually about 3-4 months frantically scouring the www and beyond for what the best option would be for me.
I was looking for options that didn't include Jaws like scars, didn't have a high statistical probablity of incontinence, {I was more concerned about that, even at 56, than} impotence, after all I'm not shy of saying I haven't had sex every day for a good number of years, BUT... I do pee most every day, several times a day, and I just didn't fancy a procedure with a highish probablility {or is that possibility} of reeing down my leg for the rest of my mortal...
So, scaring, peeing diapers and the like,and months of recouperation put me off having a radical prostectoctomy, that and 2 lads I know who had that {can I call it barbarous} treatment developed bone cancer {in one} and lung cancer in the other within 3 years, so thrilled at this option I wasn't.
After MUCH research into HIFU that was the path I wanted to take, but unfortunately for me I had a calcium build up in my prostate, so HIFU couldn't be done, leaving me with plan B, Cryo... which looked to me like a better option than the so called "gold standards".
What I'm trying to say Jerry is, it seems to be that no matter what option anyone takes, it's proclaimed to be the best for them, this {self assurance} aint always healthy, sometimes the easiest person to fool is ourselves, that and it's much too close to the "my dog, my car, my Country" is the best.
There's an old adage over here in England that says...
"Just because you {we} want to believe something, it don't make it the truth"
and being well aware of that sort of sentiment I try to calibrate my thoughts and values against it.
Hope you can see what I was trying to say.
Canada Bob.
JerryW - 16 Nov 2004 02:14 GMT Bob, I hear you, and see what you're trying to say. And, maybe because we do want to believe that what we chose was the best for us, we are just fooling ourselves. Or, maybe because we do believe that what we chose was the best for us... it was! Don't know for sure. Can we agree to disagree?
JerryW
> Hello Jerry... > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Canada Bob. Danny McCarty - 13 Nov 2004 23:39 GMT >Subject: Re: Lastest prostate cancer Treatment, high intensity focused >ultrasound [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Canada Bob. HIFU is cutting with sound- that's vibration. I can't help but suspect it more likely that cells will be loosened and drift away to produce mets by HIFU than by a knife.
Canada Bob - 15 Nov 2004 23:38 GMT >HIFU is cutting with sound- that's vibration. I can't help but suspect it >morelikely that cells will be loosened and drift away to produce mets by HIFU >than by a knife.
Holy Smokes Danny, I hope that what I say here is taken as intended {to be informative rather than disrespectful}...
But {here we go, in at the deep end}...
HIFU cuts NOTHING... and to all intents and purposes it's not {really} a vibration, not unless you count radio waves, radar {ven light waves} etc as "vibrations" which they are of course, but not in the context that you are concerning yourself about.
HIFU is ultrasound {you know, like they use for imaging pregnant women}, but with the volume turned up {sort of} and the waves focused {like we did as kids with a magnifiying lense and paper/wood ants etc}, focused right down to the size of a small grain of rice.
These {safe} waves pass through your body like the magnified waves of sunlight doing no harm at all, until... that is... the reach the focal point, where the short burst BLASTS the cells at that focal point into eternity...
The heat generated at that focal point boils all the cells in that rice grain sized area within seconds, then it lets that cool down, and moves on to the next focal point, no pain, no discomfort, nothing only DEATH to the bad guys.
HIFU has been used for years {around the World, think} China, Russia, {wait a minute, am I starting off with Countries that have bad connotations for folks in the US...
Let me start again... Countries like, England {that's better}, France {not sure about them}, Holland {should be OK there}, Germany {don't mention the War} Sweden {I'll let your thoughts run wild on that one}, Italy {same again}, Lebanon {who the hell would have backed that horse in this race}, Saudi Arabia {hey, if they want something it has to be off the top shelf}, South Korea and on and on...
HIFU isn't just used for PCa, it's also used in here in the Untidy Kingdom to treat {with a high degree of success} liver cancers, with ongoing trials of other soft tissue cancers.
Do a Google Danny, check it out... I WISH I could have had HIFU... it's walk in, walk out stuff, no diapers for weeks etc and a high degree of potency after the procedure... not to mention no scars that look like Jaws had his way with you, sigh...
Hope this helps,
Canada Bob.
Danny McCarty - 17 Nov 2004 00:02 GMT >Subject: Re: Lastest prostate cancer Treatment, high intensity focused >ultrasound [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > >Canada Bob. Ah, heat. The vibration is not enough to break off pieces. Takes time to absorb enough energy to cook the tumor. workable. You have to have an imaging technique good enough to see the tumor, difficult.
Canada Bob - 17 Nov 2004 12:41 GMT > Ah, heat. The vibration is not enough to break off pieces. It's not really vibration at all {as we might think of it} the "vibrations" are at incredibly high frequencies, a bit like you being able to notice the "vibrations" going through your body from your cell phone...
> Takes time to absorb enough energy to cook the tumor.workable. Grin, well... HIFU is FAST, it ZAPS as fast as any microwave oven but in a very focused way, you wouldn't even know the "waves" were going through your body {no discomfort or even knowledge of them at all}, not even at the focal point where they become intense, even if you weren't aneasthetized the sensation would be a good deal less than a biopsy...
>You have to have an imaging technique good enough to see the tumor, Yep...
>difficult. Nope, the same imaging technique used on most if not all of us already, Ultra sound, the same imaging technique used to check out babies still in the womb, or many other clinical conditions, and in real time too...
Nothing "really new" about HIFU, it's been around for YEARS {15 at least}, during that time it has come on {like most things do} by leaps and bounds.
That Dr Suarez {working out of Florida,Dominican Republic and now Mexico} a well respected US Surgeon has MANY patients from the US, many of them Dr's and Surgeons themselves, so "go figure" if they are confident {as Medical men} why the heck wouldn't "we" be ???
If ANYONE came to me asking for my input {what the hell do I know, grin}, I'd promote HIFU to them. I honestly believe treatments like HIFU and Cryo are the new days dawning, Thank God for that...
The so called "gold standards" do nothing for me, I {personally} would avoid them like the plague... who really wants to partake in 'any prize off the bottom shelf" !
Prostatectomy: aka The Lord Nelson treatment...
Knock the poor beggers down {with a canon ball or ether}, slice them and dice them, try not to spill any cancer cells when you're mauling about in their guts, then pass that ball of cat gut and that heavy duty stapler !!! then rest up {whilst praying} for the next 6 months...
Radiotherapy: aka the Chernobyl option...
Go sit on that pile of glowing rubble for a couple of days, and I'll see you next week.
Chemo: aka the Napoleon treatment...
Drink these toxins and lets see if it kills the cancer cells faster than it kills you.
Now I am trying to inject a bit of sardonic humour in this, BUT {to me} these treatments have had their day, and I do {in all seriousness} acknowledge they have saved peoples lives, and they were the best options at the time {for some}, but I also feel they have been leaky life boats, as I have seen a couple of my buddies put their faith in them only to lose their lives within a couple of years due to METS.
I'm eager to see "kinder, less invasive, less brutal" treatments for us all, the time has come where we should be demanding better options.
Have any of you any idea how much money is spent on Aids vs PCa ???
Lets put it this way... in Canada and the UK it's up to 100x more spent on Aids research, but the problem is... there are more folks dropping off the planet each year in Canada and the UK than are being diagnosed with Aids.
Let me outline an example... to the best of my recall, Canada put $180 Million into Aids research in 2002/3.
In 2003 there were 164 men and 54 women diagnosed with Aids a total of 218 people {looks like we could have almost made them all Millionaires} !
A TOTAL of around 3000 plus folks became HIV positive in Canada in 2003, while some 19,000 men were diagnosed with PCa. More of men in Canada will die per year than the TOTAL number of folks diagnosed with Aids/HIV.
Then take into account that the life expectancy for them is now upwards of 15 years, few of "us" has such a rosy prospect.
In the Untidy Kingdom in 2003 we had 6602 people in TOTAL diagnosed with Aids, and approx 30,000 men with PCa,that's 5x more diagnosed with PCa than Aids/HIV.
In 2002 9940 men died of PCa in the UK, that's 3338 MORE men dying then the TOTAL number of folks simply being diagnosed with Aids/HIV !!!
What this means is... there are more men dying each year in the UK, Canada, and in the US {do a Google and find out for yourselves} than folks being diagnosed with Aids/HIV ! yet Aids/HIV gets the ear of the Politicians and the money from our Governments !
The problem for us is, we aren't "organised" we don't have a political voice, many men diagnosed with PCa go home and quietly live or die from it.
If we don't raise out voices then little will be done for us, we will be at the mercy of those curious as to what's going on with PCa, yet we deserve better than that, at least equality of research funds and voices heard in political circles, don't forget "we" are dying faster/more per year than are even being diagnosed with Aids/HIV !!!
If ever there was a travesty then it's the neglect that we are subjected to.
We are too blasted quiet {I'm chosing my words carefully} for our own good !
Squeaky wheels still "get the grease", I guess there's a "freudian" in that somewhere, sigh...
Canada Bob.
jk - 11 Nov 2004 23:47 GMT As of yet there's no way to actually kill JUST the PCa and not the entire prostate along with it.
 Signature JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories
jhhtexas@ieee.org - 12 Nov 2004 19:53 GMT Ultrasound is NOT YET APPROVED in the USA by the FDA for prostate cancer treatment. There are clinical trials ongoing, however. I would not be willing to gamble on this approach myself until ,ore long-term survival data can be assimilated.
Canada Bob - 16 Nov 2004 23:42 GMT > Ultrasound is NOT YET APPROVED in the USA by the FDA for prostate > cancer treatment. There are clinical trials ongoing, however. I would > not be willing to gamble on this approach myself until ,ore long-term > survival data can be assimilated. There's long term data from the rest of the World though, seems a safe bet to me... It's approved in Canada just down the {proverbial} Street from you guys !
I think it's a safer "gamble" to consider that a new day {just might have} dawned {as long as 15 years ago}, than to bet on horses that are somewhat weary these days.
When you're life could well be on the line it might be a good idea to look at the bigger picture, what's being done in the rest of the World rather than what the FDA has time to look at, with all due respect it's not the only credible agency in the World, but it is one of the most over worked...
Canada Bob.
|
|
|