Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2006
Oh who knows. MRI, tests, surgery, S Kramer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
juniper - 22 Feb 2006 05:09 GMT SimonMed sent the results of the MRI w/spectroscopy this morning. I don't know what it means, except the "no evidence of adenopathy" sounds good. This seems to correlate with 2/10 biopsies, <1mm and 1.2 mm. None of it makes sense with a PSA in the 20s (I'm picking 24 as the PSA, since they have run around from 20.1 to 26.7 since December, and the last was 23.7.) Other stats while I'm at it are clear bone scan, clear CT scan, neg DRE, 3+3 & 3+4. The report is long, but here's the Impression (last paragraph):
"The T2 appearance of the gland is abnormal with decreased T2 signal intensity rather diffusely across the peripheral zone with some fuzziness along the right and left posterolateral margins of the gland. CSI spectroscopy is less localizing and the findings are nonspecific for prostate cancer or prostatitis. Note is also made of some focal abnormality more centrally within the gland to just the left side of the urethra on image #12. This does correlate with some elevation in choline and is nonspecific for BPH, prostatitis, or malignancy, but is of note and could also be correlated with the biopsy findings. (Note: the biopsy was only 2 samples, left and right, so is not much help here.) The seminal vesicles remain intact. There is no evidence of adenopathy or significant bone lesions in correlation with outside films. There are tiny retroperitoneal lymph nodes, which are documented."
Our onc is on vacation so we don't see her until 3/1. We see the surgeon then also. My husband feels that all indications are for surgery, so we are not going to see a radiologist at all. Surgery is scheduled for 3/7. Rather than stopping for a breather, I'm reading all I can. Seems like there is a lot of information out there that retrospectively correlates different blood tests with salvage treatment, and we don't have any of them. If I knew what to ask for, because this is our only chance to get pretreatment data. If anyone has a list of tests that could prove useful in the future (oh, how I wish to be one of the minority who never needs to know any more than a zero PSA...) I would appreciate such a list. Also, just a list of baseline stuff like PSA, since we are finally 6 weeks post biopsy. I *know* I read somewhere about a correlation between pretreatment fPSA and outcomes, but I can't find it now. So, someone has used fPSA for more than a PCa indicator, I think. I would like to find that reference so I could get a fPSA from a doctor.
Been reading this tonight. Using PSA kinetics to stratify risk of prostate cancer progression. It is not particularly useful to me right now (I was looking for information on ADT to see when it makes sense to start early ADT after the RP path reports are in-any references appreciated), but it is interesting. http://mediwire.skyscape.com/main/Default.aspx?P=Content&ArticleID=180313
Steve Kramer is so much like my husband. Young. A much lower PSA. How harsh for you, Steve. This disease never stops the waves, does it? More like tsunami. Steve, you are a light, a beacon, an oasis on this list, and it doesn't matter if you are a giver or taker. I am just glad you are here.
laurel
I.P. Freely - 22 Feb 2006 06:00 GMT > I was looking for information on ADT to see when it makes sense to > start early ADT after the RP path reports are in-any references > appreciated IMO, in a very small nutshell, after extensive analysis of all the lit I could find and oncology board review of my findings, EARLY (by definition, before the PSA starts rising after a first treatment) ADJUVANT (after a first treatment) ADT makes sense when the pt and his family value maximum lifespan at all costs. The minute one begins examining that blanket statement, the picture gets immense and very complex -- which is exactly the reason that examination is necessary ... IMO. If you don't examine the details and make your own decision, you WILL always second guess your decision ... IMO. ADT usually has huge impacts on a vigorous man's QOL, but then so does metastasized cancer. The real measure of the value of any tx is its therapeutic index -- its ratio of benefit to harm. THAT is a very personal value because it depends VERY heavily on one's own priorities in life, which require extensive reading, introspection, and discussion.
The benefit of ADT is somewhere between zero and a year or two of lifetime extension, averaging somewhere near 6-8 months. It does not cure; it just delays, and may exacerbate, the end stage. The harm is often immense, especially if the man is vigorous and/or athletic, and extremely complex. The best place to start researching that is in Strum's Androgen Deprivation Syndrome treatise. It's FAR too complex to try to summarize here.
FWIW, I presented and discussed my early adjuvant ADT data and decision here beginning in early Nov 04 in several threads. They may be of interest to you. With any luck, you'll have more luck than I just did in Googling them up; it worked fine last month but found no posts by me in '04 just now .... and we KNOW that's not accurate. ;-)
I.P.
ron - 23 Feb 2006 01:15 GMT I.P. Freely wrote...snip...
> The benefit of ADT is somewhere between zero and a year or two of lifetime > extension, averaging somewhere near 6-8 months. Had a chance to check out those reference I posted last time? The average difference in time from diagnosis to death is 17.4 months favoring ADT beginning prior to mets, rather than after. And this comes from a study that is biased (due to group composition effects) against the early ADT group. This means the "real" number is probably even larger...Ron
BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):985-9; A retrospective study of the time to clinical endpoints for advanced prostate cancer; Sharifi N, Dahut WL, Steinberg SM, Figg WD, Tarassoff C, Arlen P, Gulley JL
see also... J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1525-8; Survival of patients with hormone refractory prostate cancer in the prostate specific antigen era; Oefelein MG, Agarwal PK, Resnick MI.
Steve Jordan - 23 Feb 2006 01:27 GMT > I.P. Freely wrote...snip... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > even larger...Ron > (snip)
Tch, Ron, don't bother the True Believers with facts.
Regards,
Steve J
"There is nothing sadder than the brutal murder of a beautiful theory by a gang of ugly facts." --Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld
I.P. Freely - 23 Feb 2006 01:55 GMT "Steve Jordan" sniped (no, that's not misspelled)
> don't bother the True Believers with facts.
> Had a chance to check out those reference I posted last time? Looked then, have forgotten the details, can't find the links now. Please repost and I'll look again and, if pertinent, add them to my other data below.
>> average difference in time from diagnosis to death is 17.4 months >> favoring ADT beginning prior to mets, rather than after. And this >> comes from a study "a" study? My data come from dozens of studies and was examined and approved by a team of oncologists.
For example, from the last time I posted this for forum critique: I've spent the last six weeks studying a dozen cancer books and dozens of web sites, including Walsh, PCRI (Strum, Scholz, et.al,), Lange, Marks, Blasko, Oersterling, leading universities and hospitals, NCI, ACS, NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, the VA, Harrison's Internal Medicine, etc. (I've researched medical issues on the web for many years and always wear hip boots.)
ADJUVANT TREATMENTS CONSIDERED
WW, ADT1,2,3 (early or at biochemical or clinical failure), IAD, antiandrogen monotherapy, immunotherapy, angiogenesis, MAB, etc.
EARLY ADJUVANT ADT BENEFITS . . . OR LACK THEREOF * 5-yr-relapse-free ADT improvements run from negligible to 10-15% . . . not much benefit for the SEs.
* Adjuvant ADT helped N=1 patients, but trials do not demonstrate clear advantages to ADT after RP w/N=0, even with PSA elevation.
* Major meta-study found no evidence that early adjuvant ADT provides any advantage, even w/rising PSA; Walsh, the Mayo Clinic, Sloan-Kettering, the ACS, and universities agree (citing failure to prolong life, SEs, QOL, and accelerated refraction).
* Pts w/asymptomatic mets MAY experience fewer serious complications with early, rather than late, ADT.
* Finasteride monotherapy slightly improved prognosis, but => more, higher-grade refractory tumors.
* ADT 2 or 3 (CAB) not promising, not curative, may promote refraction, no 5-yr benefit, more SEs.
* IAD MAY delay refractory mutation, MAY extend heartbeat by 6-12 months, and MAY reduce side effects towards the end of each HT-off cycle . . .
* Young G8 T3c RP pts have unacceptably high relapse and refraction rates even with adjuvant ADT,
* But it's ineffective after biochemical failure w/Gleason >7.
* T3c, G > 6, and/or aneuploidy => high p(AIPC) => low p(big ADT benefit).
* All those results => little risk and much reward potential in delaying ADT at least until PSA DT is known.
* (OTOH, accumulating evidence supports ADT w/locally advanced disease.)
* Antiandrogen monotherapy w/Casodex reduces SEs to primarily gynecomastia, may be as effective as LHRH agonists or castration for locally advanced PC, and is approved in 60 countries for that purpose.
ADTSIDE EFFECTS, DOWNSIDES, CONCERNS
* ADT SEs, in approximate decreasing order of my concern about them: fatigue/weakness/lethargy/anemia (the earliest and most obvious andropause SE), depression, osteoporosis (seriously underreported) and attendant fractures, cognitive dysfunction, hot flashes/night sweats (and the SEs of meds that reduce them), extreme irritability, emotional turmoil, poor sleep, nausea, diarrhea, lipid elevation, liver damage, psychological stress, pronounced personality alteration, upper body muscle atrophy, weight gain, breast pain, insulin resistance, and libido/ED effects. (Surprised at that last one being last? Think about it; who'd want sex with all that other crap going on?)
* ADT < 12 mo => patients suffer typical ACUTE Androgen Deprivation Syndrome (ADS; see Strum) - invariably compromising healthy, active lifestyles -- but maybe not significant CHRONIC symptoms. Chronic symptoms -- some nearly inevitable in patients treated > 12 mo -- are much more prevalent with ADT than is currently recognized or reported.
* Probabilities of various SEs combine mathematically to virtually guarantee (p > .97) one or two SEs I'm not willing to accept just for a slight, debatable, statistical lifeline benefit.
* Anti-SE meds (e.g., antidepressants, anabolic steroids, NSAIDS) have their own, major, SEs.
* I have two conflicts with biphosphonates: NSAIDS give me ulcers and I'm on a PPI for GERD.
* ADT after RP can extend life . . . if given for 28 months, but
* Two years on ADT may permanently suppress T and thus maintain SEs, and
* Trial ADT takes 6-12 months to reveal all its SEs - about the maximum extent of its lifeline extension.
* ADT => T deprivation => SEs. T > 20 => little benefit. This may mean no pain (SEs), no gain.
* ADT drives PSA down, hiding the REAL killer, AIPC, while it proliferates.
* OHSU demonstrated that ADT T deprivation alters hippocampus to sharply decrease two-minute word retention (short-term memory), resembling early Alzheimer's or stroke.
* Geriatric psychologist I consulted reports most of her ADT pts suffer dramatic to devastating emotional impacts, often a near absence of the emotions we want plus wide swings in the moods we don't want; she regards ADT as primarily for patients who consider a heartbeat more important than QOL, who fear death above all, or who are encountering clinical failure.
* "PC for Dummies" says ADT converts Mr. Nice to Mr. Extremely Irritable. I'm Mr. Irritable awreddy.
* My survey of adjuvant ADT pts on alt.support.cancer.prostate => 14 respondents => 3 w/light SEs, 5 w/serious SEs, 6 w/devastating SEs; some of the latter - and their wives -- considered ADT worse than the alternative.
* Typical IAD on/off cycle => 9-16 months on, 6-9 off, w/lingering SEs dominating off cycle => little SE break => low therapeutic index.
* Antiandrogen SEs = primarily diarrhea (less w/Casodex) and breast pain . . . + maybe long term PC stimulation.
* PCRI/Scholz: "The biggest difference between adjuvant treatments is QOL, not survival; choose by SEs."
BOTTOM LINE
The few months adjuvant ADT MAY add to my life are highly likely be burdened with SEs which threaten the most important elements of my life. I'd far rather feel like an athlete, think like a student, and be a good companion to my wife for 5 years and then die than feel like road kill, think like a fencepost, and be a major PITA for 6 or 7 and die on her anyway. Life's about quality, not just quantity, and the steeper the slide from vigor to rigor, the better. Besides, Partin says my glass is 1/6 to 2/5 full; I don't want to poison it, especially with CC waiting to render my PC -- and ADT -- moot.
Steve can hang his trust in one trial if he likes; I'll be glad to add his to my data if a) he'll link it again and b) my onc board says it outweighs the data above.
I.P.
ron - 23 Feb 2006 02:17 GMT I.P...My aim is not to change your mind. I only want to make sure that others get a balanced view of this "6-8 month" issue. I believe from my reading that there is a good chance your position on this item is incorrect. The studies I cited (you can get the abstracts off of PuBMed, or go to a library for full text) give reasons why the earlier studies may be flawed. At this time I've only read a bit of what you posted as the basis for your position, but there are some errors. For example
* Finasteride monotherapy slightly improved prognosis, but => more, higher-grade refractory tumors.
That was an initial observation from a study, but has since been shown to be due to a sampling artifact from the study...Ron
I.P. Freely - 23 Feb 2006 05:41 GMT >Had a chance to check out those references I posted last time?" THAT'S why I couldn't find them to refresh my memory; I thought Steve Jordan had posted them, and was looking under his posts.
> I.P...My aim is not to change your mind. Why not, if I'm wrong? I don't want to mislead anyone, let alone make my own decisions based on incorrect "facts".
> I only want to make sure that others get a balanced view of this > "6-8 month" issue. I believe from > my reading that there is a good chance your position on this item is > incorrect. The studies I cited (you can get the abstracts off of > PuBMed, or go to a library for full text) give reasons why the earlier > studies may be flawed. Your first reference addresses hormone refractory pts, not early (as opposed to late or no) ADT as the thread's opening question and my comment specifically addressed, so I don't know how it relates to the data and expert opinions I already had. Additionally, this abstract's entire conclusion is that "Historical reports of survival in hormone refractory prostate cancer underestimate current survival observations." No numbers to support it OR quantify it, just comments about why that conclusion may be valid. That's not much data for me to overthrow the other much more extensive sources, data, and authoritative opinions I used, nor any indication of how far off I or my oncs may be. Others still facing an ADT decision may wish to "go to a library for full text" of your references. I went with the 6-8 months because a large study supported it and because for every trial that offered a greater benefit I found one or more study and/or major source that offered much LESS benefit. It's very tough for me to disregard this: "Major meta-study found no evidence that early adjuvant ADT provides any advantage, even w/rising PSA; Walsh, the Mayo Clinic, Sloan-Kettering, the ACS, and universities agree (citing failure to prolong life, SEs, QOL, and accelerated refraction)."
Your second abstract takes the situation even farther from the early adjuvant scenario, with a cohort of biochemical failures and mets. Then it concludes simply that "the results suggest a longer than expected survival with AI prostate cancer, and to our knowledge this is the first study to report the time to metastatic disease for D0 patients from ADT and from AI." Again, no quantification to base a decision on, and definitely not early ADT.
Thus I also don't know how your statement "The average difference in time from diagnosis to death is 17.4 months favoring ADT beginning prior to mets, rather than after" compares to my early ADT numbers.
Maybe we're not talking apples vs oranges, but we may be talking Granny Smiths vs Golden Delicious. Your studies may blow the other data out of the water, but I don't see evidence of it.
> At this time I've only read a bit of what you posted >as the basis for your position I wouldn't expect anyone to actually READ all that stuff again; I was just trying to illustrate that I was coming from a large slew of trials and authors, not just two relatively small studies.
> * Finasteride monotherapy slightly improved prognosis, but => more, > higher-grade refractory tumors. > > That was an initial observation from a study, but has since been shown > to be due to a sampling artifact from the study...Ron I'll take your word for it.
I.P.
ron - 23 Feb 2006 09:52 GMT I.P. Freely wrote...snip...
> Your first reference addresses hormone refractory pts, not early (as opposed > to late or no) ADT as the thread's opening question and my comment > specifically addressed, so I don't know how it relates to the data and > expert opinions I already had. In the abstract it gives the time to AI from initiation of ADT for D0 and D2 patients. In the full text they discuss time to AI, mets and death from diagnosis. The paper certainly covers AI, but is not limited to AI or hormone refractory patients.
> Additionally, this abstract's entire > conclusion is that "Historical reports of survival in hormone refractory > prostate cancer underestimate current survival observations." No numbers to > support it OR quantify it, just comments about why that conclusion may be > valid. I don't see those quoted words in the abstract. Do we have the same paper? I've posted the abstract below. The "results" section has quite a few comparative numbers, the full text has more...Ron
BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):985-9
A retrospective study of the time to clinical endpoints for advanced prostate cancer.
Sharifi N, Dahut WL, Steinberg SM, Figg WD, Tarassoff C, Arlen P, Gulley JL.
Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute/NIH, 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the natural history of patients with prostate cancer who start initial androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for biochemical failure with no radiographic evidence of disease (D0) or with radiographic metastatic disease (D2), as the history is either not well-defined or is changing, and such data are critical for guiding therapy after prostate cancer recurrence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the time to androgen-independence (AI), defined as the first sustained rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level on ADT, time to metastatic disease and overall survival for 80 patients with metastatic prostate cancer in clinical trials at the National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: ADT was initiated after metastatic disease in 37 patients and before metastatic disease in 43 patients; in these 43 patients, the median time to developing metastatic disease on ADT was 37.8 months. The median time to AI from the initiation of ADT was 19.3 and 13.1 months in D0 and D2 patients, respectively. The median overall survival from the start of ADT was 89.0 and 63.0 months, and the median overall survival from the time of AI was 63.1 and 44.2 months in D0 and D2 patients, respectively. These 80 patients, which included 43 who had no metastatic disease when starting ADT, had a median survival of 54.8 months after AI prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the natural history of AI prostate cancer in D0 patients who eventually developed metastasis, and in D2 patients. The results suggest a longer than expected survival with AI prostate cancer, and to our knowledge this is the first study to report the time to metastatic disease for D0 patients from ADT and from AI. These results can be used to help design clinical trials in patients with D0 prostate cancer.
PMID: 16225513
I.P. Freely - 23 Feb 2006 18:01 GMT > I.P. Freely wrote >> Your FIRST reference [concludes] "Historical reports of survival in >> hormone refractory >> prostate cancer underestimate current survival observations."
> I don't see those quoted words in the abstract > BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):985-9 > A retrospective study of the time to clinical endpoints for advanced > prostate cancer. > Sharifi N, Dahut WL, Steinberg SM, Figg WD, Tarassoff C, Arlen P, > Gulley JL. That was your SECOND reference, which I addressed next. Keep readin'.
I.P.
ron - 23 Feb 2006 18:23 GMT Gimme a break. Look at post #3 in this thread, the BJU ref was my first reference. Do you intentionally obfuscate everything in order to minimize the possibility of meaningful dialogue?
I.P. Freely - 24 Feb 2006 05:39 GMT "ron" wrote ..
> Gimme a break. Look at post #3 in this thread, the BJU ref was my > first reference. Do you intentionally obfuscate everything in order to > minimize the possibility of meaningful dialogue? It was you, not I, who posted your two references in one order, then another. Do you intentionally obfuscate everything in order to minimize the possibility of meaningful dialogue?
You posted your references in this order on Feb 12: First: J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1525-8; Second: BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):985-9;
Then you posted the same references again on the 22nd, reversing their order thusly: First: BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):985-9; Second: J Urol. 2004 Apr;171(4):1525-8.
I happened to find and use your Feb 12 list first, the one Steve directed me to with "On Washington's birthday, ron wrote ..." -- you know, right before he added "Ron, don't bother the True Believers with facts."
It should have been obvious to you which reference was which, considering the exact quotes and additional discussion I provided in both discussions. Besides, both references reach essentially the same questionably relevant, very imprecise conclusion: "late adjuvant ADT might help more than the rest of the PC field believes."
If I were as suspicious as you and Steve seem to be, I'd guess the two of you set this whole thing up just to play me like a violin ... at the expense of others who are just trying to get some information and/or opinions. But, noooooo ... you guys wouldn't do THAT, would you?
Gimme a break.
I.P.
Ron - 22 Feb 2006 22:28 GMT > I > *know* I read somewhere about a correlation between pretreatment fPSA > and outcomes, but I can't find it now. So, someone has used fPSA for > more than a PCa indicator, I think. I would like to find that > reference so I could get a fPSA from a doctor. This link contains such a reference:
http://urology.jhu.edu/prostate/advice1.php
Look about half-way down the page under " Are there any other tests that are useful for predicting which prostate cancers need to be treated? "
I believe the paragraph stems from a few papers that were published by the Hopkins group some years ago. They are also referenced in the Strum book.
FWIW, I can tell you that two uros whom I have asked specifically about this have stated they do not give it much credence - ie. while it is generally accepted that fPSA <~ 15% is a flag for PCa, it seems not generally accepted that it is predictive of more aggressive tumors down the road.
Hope this helps, RonL
Steve Kramer - 23 Feb 2006 02:20 GMT I am honored by your remarks. Yes, indeed, your husband is very much like me. A little older and somewhat higher PSA. I suspect treatments and chances of cure are about the same as mine were in 2000.
 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, 2/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
> SimonMed sent the results of the MRI w/spectroscopy this morning. I > don't know what it means, except the "no evidence of adenopathy" sounds [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > laurel juniper - 24 Feb 2006 04:18 GMT > SimonMed sent the results of the MRI w/spectroscopy this morning. I > don't know what it means, except the "no evidence of adenopathy" sounds [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the last was 23.7.) Other stats while I'm at it are clear bone scan, > clear CT scan, neg DRE, 3+3 & 3+4. Well, this abstract seems to indicate that the % of biopsy means more than PSA or Gleason re ECE, so maybe these results aren't as haphazard as I thought. Service de Radiologie B, Hopital Cochin, 27, rue du Faubourg-Saint-Jacques, 75014 Paris.
MRI can assess local and locoregional spread of a newly diagnosed prostate cancer by detecting extracapsular extension (ECE), seminal vesicle invasion (SVI) and lymph node invasion. Endorectal MRI remains the only accurate means to assess local extension. Pelvic MRI with surface coils and the use of superparamagnetic particules provide the sensitivity and the specificity which have never been obtained by the sole measurement of node size of the lymphatic chains draining the prostate gland. With the endorectal coil, only direct signs of extracapsular extension have been maintained and indirect signs have been discarded, giving their too low specificity. Early SVI can only be consistently detected if result of TRUS guided biopsies show involvement of the prostate base. With the pelvic phased array coil, superparamagnetic particules show that metastatic lymph nodes have a specific MR signal which can be detected in normal size nodes. Indications of imaging relies on results of parametrers available before MR imaging. More important than PSA level and Gleason score on biopsies is the so called quantitative histology, represented by the number of sextants involved by tumor and the amount of cancer (measured in mm of tumor) present on biopsies which determine a risk of extraprostatic spread. Of the risk of extraprostatic spread depends indication of MR, which is most probably unnecessary in patients at low risk (<20%) of extraprostatic extension.
|
|
|