 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2005Prostate Cancer 'Lumpectomy' Tested
Prostate Cancer 'Lumpectomy' Tested Preliminary Results Look Promising By Miranda Hitti WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD on Friday, April 01, 2005 More From WebMD After Prostate Cancer: Life Goes On More on Prostate Cancer Treatments Sign Up for the Men's Health Newsletter April 1, 2005 -- A new, approach to prostate cancerprostate cancer has reportedly fared well in early tests. The technique, called focal cryoablation, targets tumors without harming healthy tissue. Gary Onik, MD, who tested the procedure on a small group of prostate cancer patients, calls it "lumpectomy" for prostate cancer. The technique still needs long-term study but could be a "major and profound departure from the current thinking about prostate cancer," says Onik, in a news release. Onik pioneered prostate cancer cryoablation in the early 1990s, says the news release. For more than five years, Medicare has approved cryoablation of the whole prostate gland. The new technique refines that strategy, zeroing in on tumors, not the entire prostate. It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 > tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging > methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of > success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron I have read some real horror stories on crybolation. If it doesn't work, salvage treatments are difficult. Also, it can really damage the erectile nerves that are in proximity to the prostate. > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 > tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging > methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of > success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron I have read some real horror stories on crybolation. If it doesn't work, salvage treatments are difficult. Also, it can really damage the erectile nerves that are in proximity to the prostate. > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 > tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging > methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of > success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron I have read some real horror stories on crybolation. If it doesn't work, salvage treatments are difficult. Also, it can really damage the erectile nerves that are in proximity to the prostate. > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 > tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging > methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of > success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron I have read some real horror stories on crybolation. If it doesn't work, salvage treatments are difficult. Also, it can really damage the erectile nerves that are in proximity to the prostate. > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 > tumor sites, or some number like that? I suppose that as imaging > methods improve, focal cryoablation might have a better chance of > success. Just my thoughts...Best wishes and good health, Ron I have the same doubts. If there are 5-7 observable tumor sites, how can you be sure of hitting them all. And how many microscopic tumor sites are there? On the other hand, if the treatment could be applied repeatedly it might be interesting. Zap each tumor as it becomes big enough to see. This is one experimental trial I don't think I'd participate in. Alan Alan, In about the same time frame that I decided on seeds a co-worker told me of a friend who had chosen cryo. I asked if he had looked into other posssible treatments and was told a week later that the guy was advised by his GP that cryo was the way to go! He did not seek any other alternatative treatments. I haven't spoken to my former co-worker in at least a year, I'll make an effort to do so and inquire about his friend. Tom > > It's the multifocal nature of PCa that makes this approach > > problematical. Was it Walsh who said that there are typically 5-7 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Alan > Alan, > In about the same time frame that I decided on seeds a co-worker told me of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I haven't spoken to my former co-worker in at least a year, I'll make an > effort to do so and inquire about his friend. Presumably he will get cryosurgery on the entire prostate, not just on tumor lumps. Without knowing anything about the relative merits of cryo vs. radiation or surgery, I'd still think that that form of cryo is less risky than one that just aims at tumor sections. However I would like to hear about his experience. Was the treatment effective (at least so far)? What side effects did he experience? Alan |
Reply to this Message |
 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.