Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2006
casodex - what difference
|
|
Thread rating:  |
juniper - 25 Mar 2006 02:47 GMT "Drugs like Casodex and Flutamide, which allow testosterone to circulate in the man's body while preventing it from docking in androgen receptors"
Does it make a difference that there is testesterone in the system if it can't connect anywhere?
c palmer - 25 Mar 2006 03:30 GMT From: dittany@gmail.com (juniper)
"Drugs like Casodex and Flutamide, which allow testosterone to circulate in the man's body while preventing it from docking in androgen receptors"
Does it make a difference that there is testesterone in the system if it can't connect anywhere? =========
it makes a LOT of difference......
picture the androgen receptors like a lock and the testosterone like a key that you put into the lock. when this happens, the receptor gets the hormone and the cancer is allowed to grow.
casodex is like taking a fake key - sticking it into the lock and breaking it off - therefore - plugging up the lock and you can't get the right key into the lock.
if the testosterone can't get into the key hole because the casodex has plugged up the receptor, then, it slows down the overall cancer growth, even if there is a lot of testosterone in the system.
~ curtis
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so." http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
juniper - 25 Mar 2006 03:56 GMT > casodex is like taking a fake key - sticking it into the lock and > breaking it off - therefore - plugging up the lock and you can't get the > right key into the lock. I understand that part. I am wondering if it *matters* if you still have testesterone or not. Does it prevent any side effects? Keep you hair growing? Anything? Since it can't connect, is there any point to keeping it at all?
ron - 25 Mar 2006 04:19 GMT Hi Juniper...(Casodex or Flutamide) plus Proscar is practiced by some men, typically those with a very slowly rising PSA after treatment. T is used throughout the body (in muscles for example) and so the antiandrogen blocks the androgen receptors in these sites too. I've been told that while you don't feel quite as bad as when you're on ADT3, you still feel pretty listless. Another issue with this type of therapy is that with "all that testosterone with nowhere to go", a lot of it will aromatize to estradiol (E2). Typically additional drugs are need to prevent / lessen this transformation. Whether this therapy will lengthen the time to andgogen independence is anybody's guess...ron
Steve Kramer - 25 Mar 2006 13:50 GMT It makes a difference to the man, but not to the cancer, theoretically. Some skip ADT1, ADT2, and ADT3 (actually do an ADT3 minus ADT1) called BAC, just so the man doesnt' have to go without testosterone.
 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
> "Drugs like Casodex and Flutamide, which allow testosterone to > circulate in the man's body while preventing it from docking in > androgen receptors" > > Does it make a difference that there is testesterone in the system if > it can't connect anywhere? Steve Kramer - 26 Mar 2006 13:21 GMT > It makes a difference to the man, but not to the cancer, theoretically. > Some skip ADT1, ADT2, and ADT3 (actually do an ADT3 minus ADT1) called > BAC, just so the man doesnt' have to go without testosterone. I'm sorry. My grandson jumped up on my lap and wanted me to read him a book. My post ended up gibberish and I hit the SEND accidentally. It is not BAC.
It is SAB (B22 in Strum), a combination of finasteride and flutamide or bicalutamide. It's called Sequential Androgen Blockade. The goal is to maintain sexual function yet stop PC growth by providing adequate AD at the tumor cell level.
You have Strum, so you can read the rest.
The point is, T is allowed and all SEs that the loss of T might cause are eliminated.
ron - 26 Mar 2006 15:03 GMT Steve Kramer wrote...snip...
> The point is, T is allowed and all SEs that the loss of T might cause are > eliminated. Steve...Is that from Strum?..Ron
Steve Kramer - 26 Mar 2006 21:50 GMT > Steve Kramer wrote...snip... > >> The point is, T is allowed and all SEs that the loss of T might cause are >> eliminated. > > Steve...Is that from Strum?..Ron That that is the point? Yes. That it works? It's not stated. The closest he gets is, "This strategy may diminish many of the typical side-effects of conventional ADT and allow preservation of sexual function."
 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
I.P. Freely - 26 Mar 2006 23:32 GMT Re Casodex monotherapy: If a treatment offered the benefits of ADT without side effects, wouldn't it would make six-inch headlines from Los Angeles to Tibet? Wouldn't every one of us be on it? Wouldn't it be legal in the U.S.? Wouldn't it cost less than about 15 grand a year -- out of the patient's pocket because it's not approved as monotherapy -- due to mass production? Couldn't your U.S. doctor prescribe it, rather than your having to leave the country to buy it? How many men would radiate their breasts before beginning Casodex monotherapy to avoid its highly likely breast growth and pain? And realize that it is not for just any PC pt; its target audience is people WITH locally advanced PC BUT no mets AND in immediate need of hormone treatment.
Or has a LOT changed since I researched it for my own consideration a year ago?
I.P.
Steve Kramer - 26 Mar 2006 23:59 GMT > Re Casodex monotherapy: If a treatment offered the benefits of ADT without > side effects, wouldn't it would make six-inch headlines from Los Angeles [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > radiate their breasts before beginning Casodex monotherapy to avoid its > highly likely breast growth and pain? Yes. Yes. Yes. Probably. I dunno. All.
However, the results of SAB against cancer are unimpressive.
Steve Jordan - 27 Mar 2006 01:34 GMT Quoting IP in pertinent part:
>> How many men would radiate their breasts before beginning Casodex monotherapy to avoid its >> highly likely breast growth and pain Steve K responded in pertinent part:
> All. > Hmm. "Highly likely breast growth and pain, eh?
According to rxlist.com, the incidence of gynecomastia, which is what IP was referring to without knowing its name, in a test involving 50 mg qd of Casodex *with an LHRH analog* was, in a cohort of 401 men, 36; nine percent.
Hardly "highly likely."
But the dosage is not specified. So, be fair
Where Casodex (bicalutamide) was tested at 150 mg qd as monotherapy, indeed "The most common adverse events with bicalutamide were gynecomastia and breast pain."
The clinical test to which I refer concluded, "This analysis confirms that bicalutamide provides benefit in patients with locally advanced disease."
See: Wirth MP et al., "Bicalutamide 150 mg in addition to standard care in patients with localized or locally advanced prostate cancer: results from the second analysis of the early prostate cancer program at median followup of 5.4 years." J Urol. 2004 Nov;172(5 Pt 1):1865-70. PMID: 15540740.
Breast radiation is not mentioned.
So: if one wishes to make progress against his disease with the medical weapons at his disposal, it is all futile according to Chicken Little. One will suffer, suffer, suffer. Woe is me. And you.
Ho. Also Hum. Regards,
Steve J
"What does not kill me, makes me stronger." --Friedrich Nietzsche
I.P. Freely - 27 Mar 2006 05:47 GMT > Quoting IP in pertinent part: >>> How many men would radiate their breasts before beginning Casodex [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > According to rxlist.com, the incidence of gynecomastia, which is what IP > was referring to without knowing its name, Then why have I used the term so many times? I just don't feel a need to use $100 words, especially when many people associate this one primarily with enlargement (an aesthetic issue) without considering the pain (a real issue) it can produce.
>in a test involving 50 mg qd > of Casodex *with an LHRH analog* was, in a cohort of 401 men, 36; . 50 mg failed monotherapy (the stated topic of this thread and my comments) trials. The recommended dosage is 150 mg, and experiments are ongoing at over 300 mg. I'd guess 2 mg would produce even less gynecomastia, but then so would a glass of milk.
> nine percent; Hardly "highly likely." The Casodex Early Prostate Cancer Trial Programme, "the world's largest PC tx trial ever conducted" according to the literature, with >8,000 pts in 23 countries, including three prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, produced a 68% rate of breast enlargement and a 73% rate of breast pain, several percent rated as "severe".
> Breast radiation is not mentioned.
Neither did >90% of oncologists mention osteoporosis to their ADT pts just just a very few years ago. That doesn't change the fact that it is almost a given if not pre-treated, just as your 9% source doesn't acknowledge that a) pre-Casodex breast radiation is the only known means of preventing ADT-related gynecomastia and b) once gynecomastia sets in, radiation doesn't help.
> So: if one wishes to make progress against his disease with the medical > weapons at his disposal, it is all futile according to Chicken Little. > One will suffer, suffer, suffer. Heck, I didn't even mention the rest of Casodex monotherapy's list of SEs, such as its 50% incidence of hot flashes, because the issue was gynecomastia.
If you want to pump chemicals and/or radiation into your body with limited acknowledgment of or preparation for their whole spectrum of impacts, feel free, but I suspect most people prefer seeing the whole picture when making major decisions, so they can maximize the benefits and minimize the downside. At least give people a CHOICE between Chicken Little and Polyanna.
Steve, your little vendetta is chewing up the scenery, apparently blinding you to the literature and the archives, misleading people in your unsuccessful efforts to undermine the facts I present, denigrating the forum, offsetting the accurate and informative posts you're highly capable of, making you look petty, and even making some people resent your probably-ADT-induced emotional issues you insist are correctable but do nothing about.
I.P.
juniper - 26 Mar 2006 20:00 GMT > You have Strum, so you can read the rest. True, I have it and I can and I will. I still really appreciate your post, because it helps focus my overwhelm. Thanks a bunch, Steve.
Steve Kramer - 26 Mar 2006 21:53 GMT >> You have Strum, so you can read the rest. > > True, I have it and I can and I will. I still really appreciate your > post, because it helps focus my overwhelm. Thanks a bunch, Steve. I hope that didn't come across as "do your own research." There is a lot of info leading up to SAB, starting on B19, and a lot after, ending about B25. Rather than synopsize it all, and remembering that you stated that you had the book, I just mentioned where it was.
Reading it now almost seems abrupt and that was not my intent.
 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
juniper - 27 Mar 2006 20:09 GMT > Reading it now almost seems abrupt and that was not my intent. Not at all. My guilt rearing its head. A lot of times I don't ask questions because I know I can find them somewhere, and I don't want to be 'lazy.' It's not really true, though, about finding things. You put a question on the group and you get distillation of hours, years, days of information from some pretty intellingent guys. Really, its like a metastudy with more applicability.
Ed Friedman - 27 Mar 2006 21:17 GMT > "Drugs like Casodex and Flutamide, which allow testosterone to > circulate in the man's body while preventing it from docking in > androgen receptors" > > Does it make a difference that there is testesterone in the system if > it can't connect anywhere? Juniper,
This is a very good question, and the answer is fairly complicated and technical. To understand this, you have to put together lots of different research. For the sake of readability, I'll omit the references for the research I'm about to discuss, but I'd be happy to give you any reference that you want if you want to check something out for yourself.
Basically, dealing with altering how hormones interact with hormone receptors is a double-edged sword. It has the potential to almost wipe out prostate cancer (PCa), or it can be fatal. The exact same treatment that is successful for one man may be disasterous for another. Even when a treatment works, it might wipe out 99% of the cancer cells, but promote the other 1% to grow faster than ever.
The most important thing that you have to understand is that there are two different androgen receptors - the intracellular one (iaR) and the membrane one (mAR). Casodex and Flutamide block iAR but have no effect on mAR. Now, if your level of T drops below some critical level, then you have ADT. ADT works because mAR produces a protein, calreticulin, which keeps PCa alive by preventing calcium overload apoptosis. Once T falls below the critical level, not enough calreticulin is made and most PCa cells tend to die - often before they get a chance to reproduce.
However, once your level of T goes above the level of ADT, then the lower it is, the worse the prognosis. Basically, they have shown that men with the lowest levels of endogenous T are most likely to have PCa cells that have escaped the prostate before treatment, and are most likely to fail ADT.
It turns out that mAR also produces proteins that cause apoptosis. Studies done where mAR was stimulated, but not iAR, show that apoptosis occurs in all PCa cell lines tested, even in very aggressive androgen-independent lines. Studies with ADT have shown that PSA drops to undetectable several months faster when 5mg/day of finasteride(F) is given along with Casodex and a LHRH agonist than without the F.
From all of this, you might logically conclude that when using F and Casodex, the higher the level of T the better. They have recently shown that ADT followed by T and F is ~5 times more effective than continual ADT. Since DHT binds to iAR ~5 times stronger than T does, this showed that just reducing the iAR activity while stimulating mAR activity was sufficient to increase apoptosis greatly. Adding Casodex to this treatment should be even more effective.
A couple of obvious questions are what is the threshold level of T necessary to get apoptosis to kill PCa faster than it grows, and what is the upper level of T before you stop getting increased rates of apoptosis. Nobody has answered this question for T + F + Casodex, but Dr. Leibowitz has reported that a T level of 1500 seems to be where PSA declines when using just T + F. It is likely that a lower threshold of T would suffice with Casodex added as well. There is no data on all on the upper limit of T. Dr. Leibowitz has observed that at a level of T of 3500, the rate of decline in PSA is faster than it is at 1500, but he never explored what the upper limit might be.
Also, people rightly pointed out the potential negative side effects of T being converted to estradiol (E2). This is readily corrected by monitoring the level of E2 and using arimidex as needed to keep it within the normal range.
Finally, although the above protocol may be effective for close to 100% of men with PCa, there is always the possiblity of rare mutations that can cause problems. If, e.g., the man has a mutation that lost the mAR totally, then Casodex by itself will cause the PCa to grow faster, and Casodex plus F would cause it to grow faster still. In this case you can still wipe out the PCa by using T without the F or Casodex, but good luck finding any doctor willing to utilize that treatment. Even if you did, you would have to closely monitor the PSA, since it is quite likely that there would be some cells that would thrive under those conditions, and you would have to switch to T + F + Casodex after wiping out all of the PCa cells that lack mAR.
Also, adding T to Casodex + F could cause the PCa to grow faster if the mAR is present but there is some rare mutation that affects its ability to produce apoptotic proteins. This can be countered with the proper drugs, but they are not yet FDA approved, so there is no point in discussing them here.
I apologize for the complexity of this post, but PCa is a complicated disease. About all anyone can do is to play the odds, while being aware that random chance can give a fatal mutation to anyone at any time.
Ed Friedman
juniper - 28 Mar 2006 04:08 GMT Ed, Thank you very much for all this information. I am still studying, but have a couple of questions.
> that is successful for one man may be disasterous for another. Even > when a treatment works, it might wipe out 99% of the cancer cells, but > promote the other 1% to grow faster than ever. Does one know this is happening, if it is? Is this from petri dish studies, or documented through people's experience? If so, what sort of tests detect this?
> The most important thing that you have to understand is that there are > two different androgen receptors - the intracellular one (iaR) and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > falls below the critical level, not enough calreticulin is made and most > PCa cells tend to die - often before they get a chance to reproduce. Is this normal blood levels of calcium that creates apoptosis if not proected by calreticulin?
> However, once your level of T goes above the level of ADT, then the > lower it is, the worse the prognosis. Basically, they have shown that > men with the lowest levels of endogenous T are most likely to have PCa > cells that have escaped the prostate before treatment, and are most > likely to fail ADT. What is a low level? One of the pre-RP tests I snuck in was T. His # was 574 (ref 262-1593). Is that low or high for an untreated man?
> It turns out that mAR also produces proteins that cause apoptosis. > Studies done where mAR was stimulated, but not iAR, show that apoptosis > occurs in all PCa cell lines tested, even in very aggressive > androgen-independent lines. Studies with ADT have shown that PSA drops > to undetectable several months faster when 5mg/day of finasteride(F) is > given along with Casodex and a LHRH agonist than without the F. Stimulated how? By all the extra T that isn't going into iAR? What prevents the mAR from killing cells normally?
Is this an accepted tx? Does anyone do this not in trials? (F+LHRH+Casodex)
> From all of this, you might logically conclude that when using F and > Casodex, the higher the level of T the better. They have recently shown > that ADT followed by T and F is ~5 times more effective than continual How long of ADT? Are you saying followed by supplemental T?
> ADT. Since DHT binds to iAR ~5 times stronger than T does, this showed > that just reducing the iAR activity while stimulating mAR activity was > sufficient to increase apoptosis greatly. Adding Casodex to this > treatment should be even more effective. What is DHT? Why would adding Casodex help? I guess the question is, adding Casodex to 'what' treatment? How do you stimulate the mAR?
> A couple of obvious questions are what is the threshold level of T > necessary to get apoptosis to kill PCa faster than it grows, and what is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of 3500, the rate of decline in PSA is faster than it is at 1500, but he > never explored what the upper limit might be. I guess we are talking about treating with T in medicinal doses. ?
> I apologize for the complexity of this post, but PCa is a complicated > disease. About all anyone can do is to play the odds, while being aware > that random chance can give a fatal mutation to anyone at any time. True. Does anyone have any idea what % of people might have such a reaction?
Thanks for all the info, Ed. Not too complex for me, if you're game.
laurel
Ed Friedman - 28 Mar 2006 19:11 GMT > Ed, Thank you very much for all this information. I am still studying, > but have a couple of questions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > studies, or documented through people's experience? If so, what sort > of tests detect this? This is from results in real people. E.g., in an article published in Cancer, 1967,20:1871, only 1 out of 26 benefited from T alone. This was before PSA was discovered, and they used terminal patients and mostly went on things like bone pain. Most of the 26 had much increased bone pain following T treatment. The one patient who improved, had bone pain throughout his body and had massive weight loss before treatment. After treatment with T, all of his pain went away and he gained back all of his lost weight. Many months later, his bone pain returned and he ended up dying.
In modern times, estradiol has been shown to kill most PCa cell lines in petri dishes, but some thrive on it. In treating people with estradiol, it was observed that for most people, the PSA dropped greatly initially. Then as treatment continued, the PSA would climb back up, and when estradiol was discontinued, a great drop in PSA would occur, but eventually the PSA would climb back up and the patients would die.
>>The most important thing that you have to understand is that there are >>two different androgen receptors - the intracellular one (iaR) and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Is this normal blood levels of calcium that creates apoptosis if not > proected by calreticulin? Yes, the normal blood levels of calcium are sufficient for apoptosis if no calreticulin is present.
>>However, once your level of T goes above the level of ADT, then the >>lower it is, the worse the prognosis. Basically, they have shown that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What is a low level? One of the pre-RP tests I snuck in was T. His # > was 574 (ref 262-1593). Is that low or high for an untreated man? Different studies define low levels differently. I know that under 200 is very bad news, and probably under 300 is not too good either. 574 should be sufficient to avoid being put in the "low T" group as defined by the studies I have read about this. You can still have a bad genetic mutation, but at least you don't have to worry about a bad level of T.
>>It turns out that mAR also produces proteins that cause apoptosis. >>Studies done where mAR was stimulated, but not iAR, show that apoptosis [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Stimulated how? By all the extra T that isn't going into iAR? What > prevents the mAR from killing cells normally? They used an albumin form of T, T-BSA, to only stimulate the mAR. It is known that only free T can enter the cells, but they did the proper controls anyway to prove that none of the T from the T-BSA they used ended up entering the cells.
You ask an extremely excellent question as to why mAR doesn't kill prostate cells normally. It turns out that the iAR counters the apoptotic proteins made by the mAR. This produces a nifty explanation for how the body gets rid of old normal prostate cells (which is the reason why apoptosis exists). As long as normal levels of mAR and iAR are present and functioning properly, no apoptosis will occur. If mAR starts to lose functionality, apoptosis will occur due to not enough calreticulin being made. If iAR starts to lose functionality, then apoptosis will occur because the apoptotic proteins produced by mAR will not be totally countered.
> Is this an accepted tx? Does anyone do this not in trials? > (F+LHRH+Casodex) (F+LHRH+Casodex) is an accepted tx, first used by Dr. Leibowitz. He has published a paper about the results with 13 months of this followed by just F maintenance. Dr. Strum has published a paper using it for patients with intermittent blockade, but he did it testing with and without F. He observed that PSA dropped to undetectable earlier when F was also present, and following blockade, those patients with F had a much slower rise in PSA compared to those without F.
>> From all of this, you might logically conclude that when using F and >>Casodex, the higher the level of T the better. They have recently shown >>that ADT followed by T and F is ~5 times more effective than continual > > How long of ADT? Are you saying followed by supplemental T? They were working with mice in which they could get away with just weeks of ADT. Dr. Leibowitz has found that 13 months is an appropriate time frame for actual patients. The mouse study did use supplemental T, but that article did not reveal the serum level of T that resulted. Dr. Leibowitz has observed that when using T plus F (following 13 months of ADT), a level of T 1500 seems to be where PSA's start to decline.
>>ADT. Since DHT binds to iAR ~5 times stronger than T does, this showed >>that just reducing the iAR activity while stimulating mAR activity was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What is DHT? Why would adding Casodex help? I guess the question is, > adding Casodex to 'what' treatment? How do you stimulate the mAR? DHT stands for dihydroxytestosterone. It is the preferred hormone for binding to iAR, whereas T is the preferred hormone for mAR. If the goal is to have maximum stimulation of mAR (to produce the maximum amount of apoptotic proteins) coupled with minimum stimulation of iAR (stop iAR from countering the apoptotic proteins), then you want to add Casodex since it binds to iAR and blocks T or DHT from binding there. Since this blockage is not 100%, you also want to reduce DHT in order to minimize any iAR activity.
>>A couple of obvious questions are what is the threshold level of T >>necessary to get apoptosis to kill PCa faster than it grows, and what is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I guess we are talking about treating with T in medicinal doses. ? Yes, this is using T as a medicine. I'm not a doctor and not sure what regulations are in effect for the use of T. I do know that Dr. Leibowitz officially claims that he is using T on his PCa patients in order to treat their andropause, and that the drop in PSA is essentially just a fortuitous side effect.
>>I apologize for the complexity of this post, but PCa is a complicated >>disease. About all anyone can do is to play the odds, while being aware >>that random chance can give a fatal mutation to anyone at any time. > > True. Does anyone have any idea what % of people might have such a > reaction? It's not clear, and the more PCa cells present (the higher the PSA) the more likely that one of these mutations will be present. Dr. Leibowitz claims to be treating over 100 but less than 200 patients with high T plus F, and 3 of them reacted poorly and treatment had to be discontinued. I estimate that this means roughly a 98% success rate.
> Thanks for all the info, Ed. Not too complex for me, if you're game. > > laurel Laurel,
You asked extremely good questions throughout your post, and I enjoyed answering them for you. Don't hesitate to ask for any further clarification.
Ed Friedman
juniper - 29 Mar 2006 02:34 GMT Thanks for all your time and sharing your knowledge, Ed. I am having kind of a breakdown here, so just scanning. But a question, until I can get back to this.
> (F+LHRH+Casodex) is an accepted tx, first used by Dr. Leibowitz. He has > published a paper about the results with 13 months of this followed by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was also present, and following blockade, those patients with F had a > much slower rise in PSA compared to those without F. Can you refer me to papers to take to the onc?
Ed Friedman - 29 Mar 2006 17:49 GMT > Thanks for all your time and sharing your knowledge, Ed. I am having > kind of a breakdown here, so just scanning. But a question, until I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Can you refer me to papers to take to the onc? Dr. Leibowitz and Dr. Tucker had 3 papers published about this. The first paper is at:
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/6/2/177
The next paper is at:
http://www.prostateweb.com/pdfs/ASCO_PCF_02_2005.pdf
The last paper (which you might find especially interesting, since it concerns men with locally advanced PCa or with metastases) is at:
http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/? vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confI D=34&abstractID=34127
Unfortunately, I can't give you the web site for the Strum article. The jurology.com website is down. However, the paper was a short abstract, and didn't even include any materials and methods section. The reference is:
Scholz M, Strum S, McDermed J, "Intermittent androgen deprivation (IAD) with finasteride (F) during induction and maintenance permits prolonged time off IAD in localized prostate cancer (LPC).", J Urol, 161:156A, 1999
Basically, they showed that combined hormonal blockade with F had a shorter mean time to undetectable PSA, and F maintenance resulted in a lower mean velocity of PSA increase.
One final thing that you should be aware of is that Dr. Leibowitz observed sharp rises in PSA for men taking 5AR2 inhibitors (e.g. F) and taking large amounts of phytoestrogens (e.g. soy or flaxseed). My own model shows that this is to be expected for any phytoestrogen that is less than a full agonist for ER-beta.
Good luck,
Ed
|
|
|