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 / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Lupron Side Effects in General

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ken - 21 Dec 2005 23:59 GMT
While we're on the topic, ONE of ADT's many side effects is bone loss.
This study's objective was to determine when to start meds to help
reduce it.

Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:31 PM GMT
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men with advanced prostate cancer may be
given therapy to stop their production of testosterone, which may drive
tumor growth. However, androgen deprivation therapy, or ADT, appears to
trigger a rapid loss of bone mineral density (BMD), researchers report.

Dr. Susan L. Greenspan of the University of Pittsburgh and colleagues
note in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism that
although bone loss is associated with ADT, little is known about when
this may occur.

To investigate further, the researchers studied 152 men with prostate
cancer and healthy "controls." In all, 30 of the cancer patients had
had ADT for less than 6 months, 50 had received it for 6 months or
more, and the remaining 72 were not receiving ADT.

At 12 months, depending on the site of measurement, BMD loss ranged
from 1 to 4 percent in men recently started on ADT. In particular, the
loss in BMD at the wrist was 3.3 percent in these patients compared to
just 2 percent in those patients had been on therapy for longer.

No significant reduction in BMD was seen in patients not undergoing ADT
or controls.

Because the rate of bone loss "is maximal in the first year after
androgen suppression is initiated," the researchers suggest that drug
therapy aimed at stopping the resorption of bone "may be most effective
if prescribed during this period."

SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, December
2005.
Steve Jordan - 22 Dec 2005 00:20 GMT
On December 21, Ken wrote, in pertinent part:

>While we're on the topic, ONE of ADT's many side effects is bone loss.
>This study's objective was to determine when to start meds to help reduce it.
>  

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the loss is that of *bone
mineral* *density *(BMD)* *and according to Strum it begins to occur
when ADT tx begins. Therefore, it makes sense to begin use of a
bisphosphonate to counteract the ADT-induced BMD loss when ADT is begun.

See, _A Primer on Prostate Cancer_ by oncologist and PCa specialist
Stephen B. Strum and Donna Pogliano, PCa warrior.

Also see
http://www.prostate-cancer.org/education/boneintg/Strum_BoneIntegrityNatlHist.html
on the website of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute.

Frankly, it seems to me that it is well-established that the loss of BMD
begins when ADT begins (how else?) and the referenced study is a wast of
resources. But that's an argument for another day.

Regards,

Steve J
Ken - 22 Dec 2005 02:26 GMT
>Frankly, it seems to me that it is well-established that the loss of BMD
>begins when ADT begins (how else?) and the referenced study is a wast of
>resources. But that's an argument for another day.

Steve - My understanding could very well be off, but my impression has
been that loss of bone mineral density is what's generally referred to
as "bone loss," inasmuch as it creates porosity (osteoporosis) where
bone was, which leads to weakening, fractures, etc.

Here's an excerpt from a study report published in CANCER, January 19,
2004:
  "In their study, Diamond and his colleagues reviewed all the
literature related to ADT and osteoporosis and fractures from 1986 to
2000. Their conclusions are based on nine studies that included a total
of 208 patients, according to their report in the Jan. 19 online issue
of Cancer.
   Diamond notes that, in some studies, bone mineral density
measurements were up to 17 percent lower in men with prostate cancer
treated with ADT than in men not receiving the hormone therapy. In
other studies, after only 12 months of ADT therapy, ADT contributed to
bone loss of up to 8 percent from the mid-spine and up to 6.5 percent
from the neck of the femur -- the thigh bone. These losses in bone
density may increase with time, Diamond says. In addition, the
researchers found fractures were more common among men receiving ADT
compared with men not receiving ADT.
   However, Diamond's team found drugs that prevent bone breakdown,
called bisphosphonates, such as pamidronate and zoledronate can prevent
bone loss and may even increase bone mass in these patients. Diamond
advises that since osteoporosis is usually a silent disorder, patients
should request a full osteoporotic evaluation from their doctor before
starting ADT. The evaluation should include bone density tests and
X-rays. If necessary, patients should be treated with bone-building
drugs, he adds.
   Diamond's team is beginning a study of 1,000 men with prostate
cancer receiving ADT. In the study, the men will be given either
zoledronate or a dummy drug. "This study will determine the 'true'
fracture risk in these high-risk patients, as well as the efficacy of
zoledronate for preventing bone loss and fractures," Diamond says.
   Dr. Clifford Rosen, a professor of nutrition at the University of
Maine, agrees that "fractures due to rapid bone loss from ADT is a
significant cause of problems in men with prostate cancer." Preventive
therapy with bone-building drugs and calcium and vitamin D is essential
to prevent painful fractures, he says. "Although more work needs to be
done, it is conceivable that the bisphosphonates may also reduce the
risk of subsequent bone cancer, another serious complication of
prostate cancer," he adds."

...end of quoted report segment...

You mentioned Steve Strum. He wrote in LIFE EXTENSION, updated
7/13/2004, "The mechanism of progressive bone loss during ADT relates
to the fact that androgens are known inhibitors of osteoclast function.
During ADT, this inhibition is lost and osteoclasts are activated,
allowing for promotion of bone loss (resorption). Testosterone,
therefore, is an anabolic steroid for bone, muscle and other tissues.
The deprivation of androgens pushes the balance towards catabolism or
breakdown.

...end of quote...

I agree that this recent study was redundant and perhaps akin to "How
to determine when to pull your finger away from a flame." I posted it
in an effort to counteract what seems to be a pervasive misconception
about ADT's relatively benign side effects.

Several months ago, I posted on this newsgroup my experience of severe
hot flashes (every five to seven minutes, 24 hours a day), muscle
weakness, fatigue, impaired concentration, etc. Megace (which itself
has some serious problems), Efexor, black cohosh and a half a dozen
other "natural remedies," provided no relief.

I mentioned that bone loss is "ONE of" the many side effects. Again,
quoting Steve Strum...

"..., there is a spectrum of side effects that may be seen with the use
of ADT. These untoward effects are highly variable from man to man.
Some men have no significant clinical symptomatology associated with
the use of ADT, while others state they cannot function with a
reasonable quality of life. The supportive care of the patient by the
physician in using ADT is vital to the acceptability of this very
important modality used in the treatment of prostate cancer. We can
improve the therapeutic index of ADT by finding solutions to the
problems that may occur as part of the androgen deprivation syndrome,
or ADS.

These are possible findings that may occur in men receiving ADT. Many
of these issues can be prevented, lessened, or resolved as part of the
supportive care directed to the PC patient. This improves the
therapeutic index of ADT. The PC patient and his partner, as a result,
have an improved quality and quantity of life.

- Sexual Decrease in libido;
- Decrease in erectile ability Penile shrinkage;
- Testicular atrophy
- Psycho-social Mood "swings;"
- Easy crying Depression;
- Hostility
- Endocrine Hot flashes;
- Poor blood sugar control in patients with diabetes
- Gynecomastia (breast enlargement)
- Musculo-skeletal Loss of energy, feeling weak;
- Aaches and pains in joints and muscles
- Decrease in strength and endurance;
- Muscle atrophy;
- Chronic fatigue-like symptoms;
- Osteoporosis
- Increased dryness and thinning of skin;
- Nails brittle and break easily
- Body mass weight increase due to increased body fat;
- Blood pressure control more difficult
- Central nervous system Decrease in short-term memory
- Alzheimer's-like symptoms (severe short-term memory
difficulties,inability to concentrate, etc.)
- Hematologic Anemia unrelated to blood loss, iron deficiency or
- Bone marrow involvement
- Chronic anemia
- Urinary decrease or increase in urinary symptoms
- Lipids increase in LDL cholesterol and/or triglyceride levels

... end of quote...

It's important that men and their partners are aware of the side
effects, because most physicians haven't a clue. NONE of the
oncologists and urologists who had twice prescribed Lupron and Casodex,
had cautioned me about ANY side effects other than "the Lupron shot
stings a bit at the injection site."

I'm doing my best to get the word out that ADT is not even close to
benign. It's a 40-year-old prescription that needs updating.
Significantly more research money must be secured to at least catch up
to much greater funding, and resultant successes, that breast cancer
research is enjoying.

Ken
Steve Jordan - 22 Dec 2005 03:58 GMT
On December 21, Ken replied to me:

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>bone was, which leads to weakening, fractures, etc.
>  

Well, we might have a distinction without a (practical) difference.

Bone is constantly being formed and resorbed. ADT interferes with the
natural balance of the processes by increasing the rate of resorption.
This imbalance results in a net loss of bone, osteopenia, and eventual
osteoporosis and fractures if untreated. But I'm not aware of any
evidence that /pre-existent/ bone is somehow thinned by the ADT's LHRH
agonist.

I wrote the above before reading Ken's Strum citation, with which I
wholly agree. It is Strum, too, who is my primary source.

So far as hot flashes are concerned, I have had 100% excellent results
with a 204 mg injection of Depo Sub-Q Provera over three months ago.
However, it is contra-indicated unless the patient has an ultra-low PSA
(I had/have 0.01 ng/mL). Reason: DP is medroxyprogesterone, a female
hormone. It is metabolized into testosterone to some extent, so we must
begin with that ultra-low PSA so as not to do more harm than good. I
noted a one-time increase in PSA to 0.02, insignificant and temporary.

It's on the PCRI website, a 1997 article by Strum et al. under
http://www.prostate-cancer.org/education/andeprv/hormone.html
and reads: "If patients are severely affected the use of depo-provera  
injection can be considered after discussion with the patient about
potential  concerns of the use of a progestin. This concern may not be
justified but should  be explored. The injection of depo-provera,
200-400 mg im can eliminate hot  flashes. The issue is whether the
effect of this drug is due to its metabolism  to androstenedione or to
an effect on a receptor that involves the mechanism  for hot flashes
i.e. the LHRH receptor. Perhaps depo-provera may stabilize  the LHRH  
receptor."

Androsenedione is further metabolized to testosterone.

I don't think we're far apart at all, and my criticism was of the wasted
effort of the study, as Ken wrote in the snipped portion of his post,
not of Ken himself.

>I'm doing my best to get the word out that ADT is not even close to
>benign. It's a 40-year-old prescription that needs updating.
>Significantly more research money must be secured to at least catch up
>to much greater funding, and resultant successes, that breast cancer
>research is enjoying.
>  

Well, I've done funner things, but I don't know of any alternative to
ADT other than letting Nature, red of tooth and claw, take her course.
Not for me, thanks. And, as I've repeated many times, any individual
patient may experience some, none or all of the SEs on the list.

Regards,

Steve J
Brian - 22 Dec 2005 23:02 GMT
> Well, we might have a distinction without a (practical) difference.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> osteoporosis and fractures if untreated. But I'm not aware of any evidence
> that /pre-existent/ bone is somehow thinned by the ADT's LHRH agonist.

This seems to be a self-contradiction:  If bone is constantly formed and
resorbed, then all bone will thin and evaporate unless replaced as fast as
it thins.  Ergo anything that interferes with the formation side of the
cycle act to accomplish the thinning of /pre-existing/ bone, which you
later say isn't indicated by existing evidence...

It would be correct to say that the LHRH agonist itself does not dissolve
bone... that's what happens all the time anyway... the LHRH agonist
interferes with the 'creationist' side of the cycle.
Steve Jordan - 22 Dec 2005 23:48 GMT
On December 22, Brian replied to me:
> This seems to be a self-contradiction:  If bone is constantly formed and
> resorbed, then all bone will thin and evaporate unless replaced as fast as
> it thins.  Ergo anything that interferes with the formation side of the
> cycle act to accomplish the thinning of /pre-existing/ bone, which you
> later say isn't indicated by existing evidence...
>  
I say that because evidence that bone that pre-exists the application of
an LHRH agonist is somehow destroyed by the agonist simply does not exist
> It would be correct to say that the LHRH agonist itself does not dissolve
> bone... that's what happens all the time anyway... the LHRH agonist
> interferes with the 'creationist' side of the cycle.
>  
Very well. I do not understand on what particulars we disagree.

If Brian would clarify that, maybe we could have a nice civilized debate
(as opposed to what has occurred elsewhere) on the matter. Even maybe
learn something from each other!

Regards,

Steve J
Brian - 25 Dec 2005 17:28 GMT
> On December 22, Brian replied to me:
>> This seems to be a self-contradiction:  If bone is constantly formed and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> an LHRH agonist is somehow destroyed by the agonist simply does not
> exist

On the contrary, you declared evidence that existing bone is destroyed ALL
THE TIME, and gets rebuilt (almost) ALL THE TIME.  Lupron does not destroy
the bone as an active agent (said by you up here), and never asserted by
anybody I recall here in this group; Lupron intereferes with the
REBUILDING, said by you and many others.  The difference between being the
destroyer of the bone, and being the inhibitor of the rebuilding, when
the natural steady state is one of contant loss-and-rebuilding, is lost on
both the bones and me.

>> It would be correct to say that the LHRH agonist itself does not
>> dissolve bone... that's what happens all the time anyway... the LHRH
>> agonist interferes with the 'creationist' side of the cycle.
>>  
> Very well. I do not understand on what particulars we disagree.

Perhaps none...
I.P. Freely - 25 Dec 2005 20:12 GMT
I don't even know whether the Lupron itself does any damage, and it may not
matter. Lupron's purpose is to lower our T, and low T -- whether it's
induced by chemical or surgical castration or simply age -- thins bone ...
as well as causing many more SEs we associate with ADT. Google andropause
(example: http://www.andropause.com/about_andropause/impact.asp ) and/or
read Diamond's book and bone up on it. The fact that low T causes many --  
maybe most -- "ADT" SEs is one factor behind the suspicion of some
researchers that if ADT isn't giving us SEs, it's not lowering our T
sufficiently.

I.P.
Ken - 07 Jan 2006 03:05 GMT
Back on the subject of bone loss / decreased bone mineral density /
resorption / as side effect of ADT...
...................................

NEW YORK JAN 06, 2006 (Reuters Health) - Treatment of prostate cancer
with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH) is associated with
an increased risk of fracture, according to a report in the January
2006 issue of The Journal of Urology.

GnRH agonists significantly decrease bone mineral density, the authors
explain, and several retrospective studies have shown an increased risk
of clinical fractures in GnRH agonist treated men with prostate cancer.

Dr. Matthew R. Smith from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and
colleagues used a database of medical and pharmacy claims to compare
the rates of clinical fracture between a study group of 3779 men with
prostate cancer who were treated with a GnRH agonist and a control
group of 8341 similar men who were not treated with a GnRH agonist.
They excluded men thought to have bone metastases, which can increase
fracture risk.

The rate of any fracture was 21% higher among men treated with a GnRH
agonist than among men not treated with a GnRH agonist, the authors
report.
GnRH agonist treatment was also associated with a 76% higher rate of
hip fracture and an 18% higher rate of vertebral fracture, the report
indicates.

The increased fracture rates were somewhat attenuated but nevertheless
persisted after controlling for patient age, comorbidity, income,
observation period, geographic region and health plan type.

Besides GnRH agonist treatment, age and comorbidity were also
independent risk factors for fracture, the researchers note.

"The results of this and other studies suggest that strategies to
prevent fracture may be warranted in men receiving a GnRH agonist for
prostate cancer," the authors conclude.

"In recent reviews most groups recommended screening for osteoporosis
with dual energy X-ray absorptiometry scans, weight bearing exercise,
supplemental calcium and vitamin D, and selective treatment with
bisphosphonates in men at greatest risk for fracture," the
investigators add. "Prospective studies are needed to assess the
efficacy of pharmacological interventions on fracture risk in GnRH
agonist treated men."

"This article reinforces the need for well-done prospective studies and
consensus guidelines regarding bone health related to prostate cancer
and androgen deprivation therapy," Dr. Fred Saad from University of
Montréal writes in a related editorial comment.

SOURCE:

J Urol 2006;175:136-139.
...........................................

Ken
ron - 22 Dec 2005 02:58 GMT
Steve Jordan wrote...snip...
> Frankly, it seems to me that it is well-established that the loss of BMD
> begins when ADT begins (how else?) and the referenced study is a wast of
> resources. But that's an argument for another day.

Hi Steve...I seem to recollect that studies have shown that men with
PCa have a predisposition towards low BMD, even prior to beginning
HT...Happy holidays, Ron
Steve Jordan - 22 Dec 2005 03:59 GMT
>Steve Jordan wrote...snip...
>  
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>PCa have a predisposition towards low BMD, even prior to beginning
>  

I recall reading that, too.

Regards,

Steve J
John Loomis - 22 Dec 2005 01:41 GMT
Hello Ken,
   I was dxd in 1999.  My small town Dr. assured me I was going to die.  He
said that if I got my testicles removed, that would be one thing to do. He
drew pictures....I was 49.
He said I can get external beam radiation...needing Lupron, and that may
help me some.
I oft for that, and got a 3 month Lupron depot.
2 Weeks later I had more testosterone than I could imagine....
I had this heavy shot of maleness, (erection)lots of ejaculate etc.
A week later I was let down to a wimper.  I ached, could hardly walk, all my
joints ached, my balls turned into peas.
I got scared.  Went to yet 2 other Dr.s.
Luckily I can tell you this story 6 years later.
I was saved by a Dr. who did RP.  I had one set of nerves spared.
Lupron was debilitating....
So far I am ok.
Lupron may help many men, but it hurt me.
My 2 (peanuts)  Still have them  (LOL)
I did not want to be Radiated either.  Their machine was external and not
conformal...I asked the Rad Dr. about Confirmal compared to external.  He
said his machine was like confirmal///
thats when I flew the coup.
It either is or isnt.... anyway......I am not trying to confuse you but had
my Lupron, and glad I do not need that.
Wish You the best.
John Loomis   PSA les than 0.01 for 6 years now...almost.
> While we're on the topic, ONE of ADT's many side effects is bone loss.
> This study's objective was to determine when to start meds to help
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> SOURCE: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, December
> 2005.
I.P. Freely - 23 Dec 2005 20:25 GMT
> Because the rate of bone loss "is maximal in the first year after
> androgen suppression is initiated," the researchers suggest that drug
> therapy aimed at stopping the resorption of bone "may be most effective
> if prescribed during this period."

But be aware that these drugs are contraindicated for a large minority ...
many millions ... of men our age. Got heartburn, GERD, or any of several
other common problems people our age have? Just one example of the
conditions that render Fosamax, et. al., problematic if not outright
prohibited.

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.