Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2006
questions on salvage radiation
|
|
Thread rating:  |
judamd@aol.com - 04 Jan 2006 20:30 GMT While I have no need for this stuff and hopefully never will, there are a couple of questions I have about salvage radiation that I'm sure many of you can answer. First off, when they say radiate the "prostate bed" (in the absence of a specific tumor to aim at), what exactly does that mean? A simplistic mental image has a cavern where the prostate used to be and they irradiate the surface of that cavern. The problem as I see it is that cavern doesn't exist. Where the prostate was is now filled with the bladder that drops down into the void (little Willie grows back to normal size) and other tissues that now occupy that space. I assume what they mean is they radiate that general area where the prostate was and hope the damage to the bladder and other tissues is of minimal consequence. The second question has to do with dosage. How does salvage radiation both in amount and duration compare with radiation as a primary treatment? Is it more/less? Are the side effects more/less? If there's a specific tumor to aim at do they hit it hard and spare the surrounding tissues? If there's nothing to aim at what exacty do they radiate? Dave Perry
Clarence Crow - 04 Jan 2006 21:05 GMT >While I have no need for this stuff and hopefully never will, there are >a couple of questions I have about salvage radiation that I'm sure many [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >at what exacty do they radiate? >Dave Perry The fossa (bed) of the prostate is indeed the bottom face of the bladder wall. This needs carefully planned radiation to prevent damage to the bladder and even possibly bladder cancer. Other salvage radiation is aimed at the pelvis to pick up on the lymph nodes and any other suspect adjacent areas. There appears to be no definitive tumour target areas. Usually the radiation is supplemented with ADT (hormonal therapy.)
There are several guys in this NG on Salvage Therapy, so they may be able to respond with more accuracy.
If you study Dr. Catalona's Q&A section you'll find some answers.
Here!:- http://www.drcatalona.com/quest/quest_spring03_3.htm
-- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake:
-- Regards
-- CC
I.P. Freely - 05 Jan 2006 01:30 GMT > Usually the radiation is supplemented with ADT (hormonal therapy.) My docs switched their adjuvant tx recommendation, if I ever need it, from ADT to RP, i.e., one or the other. Don't know why yet; I'll research that bridge when I come to it.
I.P.
Steve Kramer - 04 Jan 2006 23:56 GMT Looks like you've gotten great answers (as is the norm here). I would add two things.
One, only of interest, I guess, is that the radiation isn't like radiation of old where they actually 'aimed' radiation from cobalt at the general direction of a tumor. What is really going on in EBRT is a partical accelerator is shooting particals through the body at such a rate that radiation is generated (or at least that's how I understand it). When the gun is turned off, there is no more radiation.
Two, the worst side effects are feared to occur sometime down the road. I worry that I will be cured of PCa in 2015 and die of colon cancer in 2020.
 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
> While I have no need for this stuff and hopefully never will, there are > a couple of questions I have about salvage radiation that I'm sure many [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > at what exacty do they radiate? > Dave Perry judamd@aol.com - 05 Jan 2006 16:26 GMT I would guess the cobalt radiation was beta particles (electrons) which could also be focused. The problem was the betas from isotopes have a rather fixed range in tissue where they would dump their energy (and ionize atoms which would destroy molecules and kill cells). A particle accelerator can send in electrons (Loma Linda uses protons I think) and vary the energy to get any depth of penetration as well as focusing.
An anecdote on radiation: Ernest O. Lawrence of Berkeley, Nobel winner for the cyclotron had a brother who was a doctor and a mother with an inoperable (at least in the late 40's) brain tumor. The boys got together and decided to put mom in the path of one of Lawrence's accelerators even though the FDA probably hadn't even thought of this kind of treatment, much less approved it. Mom went on to live many years outliving Ernest. We've got mom to thank for pioneering one of our treatment modes. Dave Perry
brody - 05 Jan 2006 23:57 GMT >Looks like you've gotten great answers (as is the norm here). I would add >two things. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Two, the worst side effects are feared to occur sometime down the road. I >worry that I will be cured of PCa in 2015 and die of colon cancer in 2020. The worst decision I ever made was to accept "Salvage Radiation" back in 1994 when my psa started back up right away after an RP even after I got a second opinion from a noted doc at UCSF who said it was ridiculous to radiate without having a definite target tumor to aim at. The side effects were terrible especially to my rectum. And after that my incontinence and impotence got steadily worse as the years passed.
I read that men who have had this treatment suffer a much higher rate of rectal cancer later--in fact I had a rectal polyp removed last month and now have to be rechecked every three years. Hormonal treatment brought my psa to nil after one year. I quit that and it's been zero ever since. I wear a penile clamp and have a totally limp dick.
brody
Steve Kramer - 07 Jan 2006 00:28 GMT >>Looks like you've gotten great answers (as is the norm here). I would add >>two things. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > been zero ever since. I wear a penile clamp and have a totally limp > dick. But, Joe. Did you really have a choice? You, like me, had some bad luck after RRP. We chose RRP and lost. We chose EBRT and lost again. When you're faced with "possible cure" vs. "no cure possible", you pick the former. You can't look back on it and think what it might have been. You made the most reasonable choice at the time.
 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
brody - 07 Jan 2006 13:38 GMT >>>Looks like you've gotten great answers (as is the norm here). I would add >>>two things. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >former. You can't look back on it and think what it might have been. You >made the most reasonable choice at the time. Of course I had a choice. The doc at UCSF gave me his learned opinion and I ignored it and paid the price. I must admit though at that time "Intermittent Hormonal Therapy" was just starting to be explored.
brody
Bill - 08 Jan 2006 15:04 GMT You should have ignored that doctor because he was wrong. I take it he was not a radiation oncologist - a urologist - right? Surgeons don't like to think they left anything behind so they are somewhat negative on salvage RT. Things may have changed since 1994 but the fact is that most men having salvage RT today do not have horrible side effects and many get a "remission" if not cure. The fact that your case did not turn out well does not mean that doctor's reasoning was correct. If a doctor is against something 100% of the time he is often going to look like a genius in the cases that go his way. Salvage RT may or may not have been the right choice for you but it had nothing to do w/ not having a definite tumor to shoot at. FWIW I'm not having it because I think my disease is systemic, as yours probably was.
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA >.6 Memphis
Steve Kramer - 09 Jan 2006 23:36 GMT Bill,
Your signature catches my eye each time I see it. Do you mean < (less than) 0.6?
> Bill Denton > RP 2/12/02 > PSA >.6 > Memphis 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
Bill - 10 Jan 2006 14:56 GMT No, Steve, I mean greater than. I missed my last quarterly PSA and the one in June was .6 so I know that it is higher than that now. I'm getting one Fri. so I'll be able to update next week. After 7 mos. I'll be happy w/ .8 or less, satisfied w/ anything <1.0, and concerned w/ anything > 1.0.
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA >.6 Memphis
Steve Kramer - 10 Jan 2006 23:07 GMT Okay, Bill. Thanks for the clarification. I hope you get your wish. Smatter of fact, I pray you can turn that 'greater than' into a 'less than.'
 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
> No, Steve, I mean greater than. I missed my last quarterly PSA and the > one in June was .6 so I know that it is higher than that now. I'm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > PSA >.6 > Memphis Bill - 05 Jan 2006 15:33 GMT "Where the prostate was is now filled with the bladder that drops down into the void (little Willie grows back to normal size)"
I don't believe that is the case since they yank the urethra up and connect it to what's left of the bladder neck. It may drop down and give you a little but not normal size. :-(
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA >.6 Memphis
Dave P - 05 Jan 2006 18:06 GMT Dose Level: Should be 64 or above. The higher the better. 68,400 is what was given to me. My surgeon wanted me to get 72,000. My Rad/Onc wouldn't go for it stating that doses at 70,000 and above cause problems for salvage patients. Urinary/Bowel problems.
Dose was given daily for 38 days at 1,800 rads per day = 68,400
They know exactly where to shoot - since they take dozens and dozens of xrays-pictures-3d images throughout the process.
I believe the Doc told me that some areas - like where I had my positive marin received much more of a dose than 68,400.
They have it all mapped out if you want to see it - your prostate region - and what area's received what amount of radiation.
Doc stated that the treatment given now with the new techniques - especially the imaging - performed by the physicist - is light years away from even what was provided in the early 2000's. The new machines make a substantial difference - but it is your physicist with the imaging techniques that really has provided the potential for great results. So make sure you have a great physicist/science person.
To be honest. I am starting to get a bit angry with the hormone and radiation treatments. WE need new treatments now. We all need to start lobbying and encouraging others to lobby for more research and treatment. Putting some pressure on our legislatures and making some noise. It's been 30 years of these treatments. It reminds me of the oil and energy crisis.
We are getting closer though. Everybody hold on to your hope. Some guy/gal will cure this disease soon.
Dave P
> While I have no need for this stuff and hopefully never will, there are > a couple of questions I have about salvage radiation that I'm sure many [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > at what exacty do they radiate? > Dave Perry
|
|
|