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 / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Article:Long-term hormone use helps prostate cancer patients live longer

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Steve U - 01 Nov 2005 18:04 GMT
Long-term hormone use helps prostate cancer patients live longer
Doctors in Canada have discovered that treating high-risk prostate
cancer patients with radiation therapy and adding hormone therapy for
more than one year allows patients to live longer, have better control
of their prostate specific antigen levels and lowers the rate of death
specifically from prostate cancer, according to a study published in
the November 1, 2005, issue of the International Journal of Radiation
Oncology*Biology*Physics, the official journal of ASTRO.
A total of 307 patients with a PSA level greater than 20 were split
into two groups, both with a similar demographic of age, Gleason score
and tumor stage. The first group had 151 patients receiving hormone
therapy for less than 12 months (short term) and the second set had 156
patients receiving hormone therapy for more than 12 months (long term).
Both groups were treated with hormone therapy in conjunction with
external beam radiation therapy.

In the long-term hormone therapy group, 62.5 percent of patients showed
a greater control over their PSA level, compared with 37 percent in the
short-term group. The five-year overall survival rate was 87.5 percent
for the long-term group and 75 percent in the short-term group. The
chance of dying of prostate cancer was reduced from 18 percent to 6
percent in the long-term group.

"Other randomized trials have shown the benefit of combining radiation
and hormone therapy in the treatment of prostate cancer. However, some
of those reports appear to be restricted to patients with a high
Gleason score," said Eric Berthelet, M.D., lead author of the study and
a radiation oncologist at the BC Cancer Agency in Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada. "This study proves that long-term hormone therapy
used in consort with radiation therapy improves survival rates for
high-risk patients, regardless of their Gleason score or tumor stage."

###
For more information on radiation therapy for prostate cancer, please
visit www.rtanswers.org.

To arrange an interview with Dr. Berthelet or for a copy of "Long-Term
Androgen Deprivation Therapy Improves Survival in Prostate Cancer
Patients Presenting With Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels >20 ng/mL,"
please contact Nick Lashinsky at nickl@astro.org or 1-800-962-7876.

ASTRO is the largest radiation oncology society in the world, with more
than 8,000 members who specialize in treating patients with radiation
therapies. As a leading organization in radiation oncology, biology and
physics, the Society is dedicated to the advancement of the practice of
radiation oncology by promoting excellence in patient care, providing
opportunities for educational and professional development, promoting
research and disseminating research results and representing radiation
oncology in a rapidly evolving socioeconomic healthcare environment
Steve Jordan - 01 Nov 2005 18:47 GMT
On November 1, Steve U wrote, in pertinent part:

> Long-term hormone use helps prostate cancer patients live longer
> Doctors in Canada have discovered that treating high-risk prostate
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the November 1, 2005, issue of the International Journal of Radiation
> Oncology*Biology*Physics, the official journal of ASTRO.

I thank Steve for the info, and wonder what ASTRO is up to. This has been
well-known for at least three years; except perhaps in Canada, the source
of this study.

See: D'Amico AV, Radiation and hormonal therapy for locally advanced and
clinically localized prostate cancer.
Urology. 2002 Sep;60(3 Suppl 1):32-7; discussion 37-8. Review. PMID: 12231043

and

Pollack A, et al., Impact of androgen deprivation therapy on survival in
men treated with radiation for prostate cancer.
Urology. 2002 Sep;60(3 Suppl 1):22-30; discussion 30-1. Review. PMID: 12231041

I've been on this regimen since October, 2004, with excellent results.

Regards,

Steve J
Alan Meyer - 01 Nov 2005 19:22 GMT
Steve,

Do you have any idea what this means from the original posting:

> "This study proves that long-term hormone therapy
> used in consort with radiation therapy improves survival rates for
> high-risk patients, regardless of their Gleason score or tumor stage."

I thought "high-risk" meant high Gleason score, high PSA and/or
advanced stage.  How can they talk about improving survival rates
for "high-risk patients" regardless of Gleason or stage?

   Alan
Steve Jordan - 01 Nov 2005 19:38 GMT
> Steve,
>
> Do you have any idea what this means from the original posting:

(su-nip)

Er, to which Steve is this question directed, U or J?

Regards,

Steve the J

PS: I so note that the NG seems rather infested with Steves.
Alan Meyer - 01 Nov 2005 22:56 GMT
> ...
> Er, to which Steve is this question directed, U or J?
> ...

I knew that you had done some research on ADT so I figured
you might know something, but all those named Steve, and any
not named Steve, who have any interpretation of this, please
chime in.

> Regards,
>
> Steve the J
>
> PS: I so note that the NG seems rather infested with Steves.

Although I was often not the only Alan (or Alen, Allan, or Allen)
in my school classes, I seem to be uniquely named on the
newsgroup.  The Steves (or Stevens, Stephens, Stephans, Stepans)
on the other hand seem very well represented.

I wonder if "Stavros" is Greek for "Stephen"?

Best,

   Alan
Steve Kramer - 02 Nov 2005 00:04 GMT
There may be 11 Steves or more.  But look at the Bills!

smu53
Stavros Moschos
Stefano Munari
Stephen Carey
Stephen Jordan
Steve
steve
Steve Kramer
Steve M (1)
Steve M (2)
Steve U

Beth for Bill
Bill
bill
Bill Beavers yahoo.com>
Bill Denton
Bill Fla
bill h
Bill N
Bill Reynolds
bill50@att.net
BillyBob
bp
FaoSin
fnulnu
MrBill
PennskeCT
wasone2
wild bill
William243

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
non Illegitimi carborundum

> > ...
> > Er, to which Steve is this question directed, U or J?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>     Alan
Steve Kramer - 02 Nov 2005 00:06 GMT
Dave
Dave
Dave
Dave Andres
Dave H (NH)
Dave H (NY)
Dave LaCourse
Dave Mills
Dave P
David
david
David Jones
David M. Hall
David Randall
David S
Davidr
Judamd
Sandy for Dave

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
non Illegitimi carborundum

> > ...
> > Er, to which Steve is this question directed, U or J?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>     Alan
Steve Jordan - 02 Nov 2005 00:07 GMT
On November first, Alan Meyer replied to my last:

> I knew that you had done some research on ADT so I figured
> you might know something, but all those named Steve, and any
> not named Steve, who have any interpretation of this, please
> chime in.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, the initial inquiry from Alan
was:

> Do you have any idea what this means from the original posting:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> advanced stage.  How can they talk about improving survival rates
> for "high-risk patients" regardless of Gleason or stage?

Hokay.

"Improved survival" rates can and often are measured in terms of months,
and not many of those, either. Remember that the Taxotere survival numbers
are months. But the test cohort was men in the final desperate stages of
PCa. If one is fairly healthy, the survival rate would be considerable.

So: seems to this layman that survival depends very heavily upon the level
at which one begins measuring.

I was and presumably still am considered "high-risk." Two years ago I began
this dance with the bear with a Gleason 4+5=9 in 5 of 6 specimens on one
lobe, plus an occult 4+4=8 in the other. My PSA was relatively low, around
5.7 IIRC. high Gleason plus low PSA is very dangerous.

Maybe my "risk" wasn't high enough. So far, I"m doing well, with several
months of <0.01 PSAs, good PAP and AP readings.

> Although I was often not the only Alan (or Alen, Allan, or Allen)
> in my school classes, I seem to be uniquely named on the
> newsgroup.  The Steves (or Stevens, Stephens, Stephans, Stepans)
> on the other hand seem very well represented.
>
> I wonder if "Stavros" is Greek for "Stephen"?

I've seen someone here call him that....

Regards,

Esteban J
Steve Kramer - 02 Nov 2005 00:27 GMT
John
John
John Baker
John Brockhouse
John C. Anderson
John Clark
John E.
John Frykman
John Ireland
John K. Herreshoff
John Lason
John Loomis
John Preston
John R Nickolls
John Raymond
John Ruggiero
johnb
JohnG
johnleon
johnskate
Jon Stone
JP
JP
wwjwd
Trujillo, Debbie for John
Hi Ho Silver
j d
jcwvpt@yahoo.com

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
non Illegitimi carborundum

> > ...
> > Er, to which Steve is this question directed, U or J?
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>     Alan
I. P. Freely - 01 Nov 2005 19:36 GMT
"Steve U" posted
> Long-term hormone use helps prostate cancer patients live longer.
> . . .  hormone therapy for more than one year  . . .
> lowers the rate of death specifically from prostate cancer
> HT for < 12 months (short term) . . .  > 12 months (long term).
>  87.5 percent vs 75 percent.
> chance of dying of PC reduced from 18 percent to 6 percent

Reinforces two basic facts gleaned last winter:
1. HT is most effective in lengthy doses. Previous trials of 28 months and 9
(I think) months showed 28 to be dramatically more effective.
2. The benefit of years on HT seems to be very small except for the small
group who slides through those narrow statistical benefit windows.

It's encouraging in that new data doesn't make me regret my ADT choice a
year ago(personally, I still consider years on ADT a price I'm not willing
to pay to open a window only 12 percent wide and 6 months deep), and it may
encourage people who consider those small windows of benefit to be an
opportunity worth pursuing.

>This study proves that long-term hormone therapy
> used in consort with radiation therapy improves survival rates for
> high-risk patients, regardless of their Gleason score or tumor stage."

Now THAT'S encouraging, in that most trials' "small print" -- written almost
as an afterthought -- includes a disclaimer such as, "Oh, yeah . . . with
Gleason 7 or above this doesn't count".

This confirmation and slight extension of previous results should give those
weighing ADT's therapeutic index (the ratio of benefits to SEs) more meat
for their decision grinder. Keep reading.

I.P.
Steve Kramer - 01 Nov 2005 22:11 GMT
I'd say 12% is a significant percentage for you, IP.  However, based one
what we have seen so far, there doesn't seem to be an empiracal data that
precludes one from starting the ADT years later while still reaping the
benefits.

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
non Illegitimi carborundum

> "Steve U" posted
> > Long-term hormone use helps prostate cancer patients live longer.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
> I.P.
I. P. Freely - 02 Nov 2005 07:14 GMT
> I'd say 12% is a significant percentage for you, IP.

As a lone-standing number, compared to my odds, I'd agreee. But once I
folded in the price, it was a much tougher choice, then ultimately a much
easier one as the severity and commonality of SEs emerged.

> there doesn't seem to be an empiracal data that
> precludes one from starting the ADT years later while still reaping the
> benefits.

That's a big part of why I made the choice I did and my docs concurred. One
of  'em came right out and said, "You're a dedicated empiricist, aren't
you?" I suspect we all should be, up to the point we run out of data and
have to go the remaining distance with our gut.

I.P.
 
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.