Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / May 2006
Does Prophylactic Hormone Therapy accelerate Hormone Refractory PcA
|
|
Thread rating:  |
WhiteSoxFan - 16 May 2006 20:38 GMT Hello All,
I'm about to undergo a clinical trial that uses Zolodex and Casodex. I'm about 4 months out of my "successful cancer contained" RRP. My post op pathology was a Gleeson 8, no lymph or seminicle invasion and one positive apical margin. I've had two .1 PSA tests so far. My question is: Am I helping or accelerating the refractory PcA cells that may be in my system if I use Zolodex and Casodex?
Thanks,
WhiteSoxFan
Steve Jordan - 16 May 2006 21:24 GMT On May 16, WhiteSoxFan inquired:
(snip)
> My question is: Am I helping or accelerating the refractory PcA cells that may be > in my system if I use Zolodex and Casodex? > I do not believe that the drugs will have any effect one way or the other on HR (hormone refractory) PCa cells.
I recommend that for a definitive answer this question be directed to the medics in charge of the trial WSF is entering.
Regards,
Steve J
"We have not lost faith, but we have transferred it from God to the medical profession." -- George Bernard Shaw
Steve Kramer - 16 May 2006 22:37 GMT > Hello All, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is: Am I helping or accelerating the refractory PcA cells that may be > in my system if I use Zolodex and Casodex? I don't believe there is a definitive answer to that. As you have seen here in the last week, there is some debate even as to when and how androgen independent cells come into being. Based on one argument, that the cells are formed pretty much by the time one is diagnosed, then hormone therapy or the lack thereof will not stem their growth. Based on the other argument, that the cells form as a result of hormone therapy and Darwin's Theory of Evolution, then the later you take hormone therapy, the longer you stave off refractive activity.
I believe the studies that have been done tend to show that it just don't make no difference. But, Ron, Ed, IP, et al. might have a better grasp of these.
 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
DominicM - 18 May 2006 02:41 GMT White Sox fan.... I am curious why you are exploring this route vs SRT? I just went thru a similiar experience a month and half ahead of you with .55 psa and spoke several docs at Sloans and Hopkins and they we're pretty much in concensus to start with SRT. I could have used ADT and SRT but docs felt ADT would cloud whether SRT was indeed curative. I am not a doc but IMHO I would recommend you do more research and get more opinions before you muck with ADT. I am two away from being done with SRT and the side effects have been minimal.
Good luck to you.
6/03 - PSA 2.0 6/04 - PSA 2.5 8/05 - PSA 4.2 11/05 - PSA 5.89 BIOPSY 8/16/05 T2A, 3+5 = 8 RP 12/13/05
PATHOLOGY GLEASON 3+5=8 TERTIARY 4, SEMINAL & LYMPH - NEG EXTRACAPSULAR EXTENSION TO MARGIN POSITIVE MARGIN - RIGHT APEX PSA POST RP 1/26/06 = 0.5, 2/1/06 = 0.55 PSA on 3/27/06 = 0.95 START SRT ON 3/27/06 (72 GRAY ON 39 SESSIONS) FINISH SRT 5-19-06!!
juniper - 18 May 2006 06:31 GMT > White Sox fan.... I am curious why you are exploring this route vs SRT? > I just went thru a similiar experience a month and half ahead of you > with .55 psa and spoke several docs at Sloans and Hopkins and they > we're pretty much in concensus to start with SRT. I could have used ADT > and SRT but docs felt ADT would cloud whether SRT was indeed curative. True, you cannot use your PSA to tell how the SRT is working. But, since SRT takes a couple or three years before you even know, its a little less critical, I think. My impression is that ADT with SRT is more effective that SRT alone. Although, since SRT does take time for all its effects to occur, I imagine that ADT need not be concurrent with the RT to have whatever synergestic effect it has. If any. All open to debate by good doctors, I know.
At any rate, White Sox, just to join the muddle, we are right behind you. RP on 3/7, pos margins and lymph, PSA post-op was .1. Then started ADT so don't know if it would have gone lower.
I am curious why they are calling it "successful cancer contained" with a positive margin.
What is the trial? The two arms, of which you will be on one?
> FINISH SRT 5-19-06!! Congratulations, Dominic! Yeah!
DominicM - 18 May 2006 11:22 GMT Steve.....thanks. Happy to be near end of my treatment! My Rad Onc feels that we may know sooner whether it worked but admittingly it my bounce around a bit.
Bill - 18 May 2006 16:03 GMT Dominic, WSF is not talking about salvage Tx at all because he has not yet had a biological failure. The 2 .1 PSAs suggest that that is the direction he is headed but he isn't there yet. In the twilight zone between primary Tx and biological failure, prior to a confirmed need for SRT, adjuvant HT might make sense. You never achieved post-RP nondetectability so your case was different.
WSF, what is the end point of the trial? Is the idea that you will stay on HT indefinitely as long as your PSA does not rise? The concern I would have is that you might forego SRT while in the trial past the point that SRT could be curative. I.e. don't sit around for the sake of the trial and let local-only disease go systemic. You need to establish a bail-out point on the front end. As to your primary question, I think Steve K. has is about right. The med-onc I saw at Vandy last week, who follows the traditional thinking, would say that HT absolutely will not make you go refractive sooner. On the other hand the alternative view sure makes sense - you deprive the PCa of the androgens it wants and it finds a way to get along w/o it.
Just had a call from a buddy who never had a PSA until the other day when his GP felt some hardness on DRE. PSA: 7. He is seeing a uro today and I see a biopsy in his future. And I thought that all of my male friends who knew about my PCa had gotten the message! :-(
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .93 Memphis
WhiteSoxFan - 18 May 2006 17:08 GMT Thank you all for your concern and advice. To clarify a bit, I am currently "in the clear" with two post "undetectable, .1 PSAs". The trial that I qualify for is comparing HT vs HT & Chemo for high risk, post RRP with an undetectable PSA for two years only. I am then tracked for 15 years. Statistics are out there for those who have done nothing or rather have not had the need to do anything. I am being tracked to see if HT or HT & Chemo before a detectable PSA arises does any good. No one has suggested post RRP, prophylactic SRT for me. I don't think you can SRT something you can't see. And I don't think you just SRT the whole parameter of what used to be my prostate because of a single apical positive margin. That's a question for another debate. SRT is still an option for me if my PcA surfaces either locally or systemicly. We sort of have to take baby steps at the early stages of PcA which I, thankfully am in right now. I kind of think these trials are not really all that controlled to do any 'truthful' good because I may be taking all sorts of steps in my lifestyle and diet that the next person in the trial is not which would certainly skew the results. I have decided to partake of the trial because thats pretty much the only way to do something while waiting for my PSA to rise (which it does half the time) and I will be closely monitored during the trial and perhaps get an early jump on anything that pops up.
WhiteSoxFan
I.P. Freely - 18 May 2006 18:08 GMT > I may be taking > all sorts of steps in my lifestyle and diet that the next person in the > trial is not which would certainly skew the results. "Certainly"? Sadly, the effect of those steps are far from certain. If they were certain, or even likely, the incidence and severity of cancer would diminish rapidly. I wouldn't sweat the skew; just decide whether you feel ADT is warranted in your case and go from there.
I.P.
Alan Meyer - 18 May 2006 23:30 GMT > ... SRT is > still an option for me if my PcA surfaces either locally or systemicly. > ... Sox,
SRT is only an option if PCa surfaces locally. If it's systemic, it's too late for radiation.
I'm a big believer in clinical trials but, if you haven't already done so, I think you should ask your doctors about radiation. Some doctors order radiation in high risk cases without waiting for a rise in PSA. Some don't. I think a lot depends on how high they think the risk is. If they're sure you've still got cancer in the prostate bed, they may want to radiate before waiting for a rise in PSA.
The big question in my mind is: What is the probability that a locally confined cancer could become metastatic while you're on ADT? If the answer to that question is: "Very low", then proceeding with the trial seems reasonable. If the answer is: "Significant", or "Nobody knows", then it seems to me that the radiation option should be considered and discussed. Hopefully the trial doctors will give you an objective opinion about all this and be helpful to you in considering the issues.
The immediate side effects of radiation may be less than the side effects of ADT. However the long term after effects of radiation are probably greater. The effects of ADT mostly go away when you get off the drugs, but the effects of radiation stay with you.
Alan
Steve Jordan - 19 May 2006 00:27 GMT On May 18, Alan Meyer replied to WSF, in pertinent part:
> The immediate side effects of radiation may be less than the side > effects of ADT. However the long term after effects of radiation are > probably greater. The effects of ADT mostly go away when you get > off the drugs, but the effects of radiation stay with you. > I'd be grateful if Alan would expand upon the above-quoted paragraph. For example, exactly what after-effects of RT are probably greater in the long term than those of ADT? What is the measure of "long term?" And what is the clinical evidence that "(T)he effects of ADT mostly go away when you get off the drugs, but the effects of radiation stay with you." What effects, exactly? And for how long?
Alan has posted very broad statements, which could be very worrisome to those who are considering RT. I think that credible evidence to support them would be helpful.
Regards,
Steve J
"What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget 'what the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!" --Lazarus Long
Steve Kramer - 19 May 2006 01:14 GMT > On May 18, Alan Meyer replied to WSF, in pertinent part: >> The immediate side effects of radiation may be less than the side [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > those who are considering RT. I think that credible evidence to support > them would be helpful. Gee, Steve... I think Alan's statement is pretty accurate and includes sufficient qualifiers.
The effects of radiation do not stop when the last treatment is applied or when the last PCa cell commits suicide or fails to replicate itself. People who tan themselves brown all their lives often find they've caused themselves cancer 20 years later. My SIL had a benign tumor radiated 20 years ago and is now suffering from white and gray matter loss, is in a nursing home and may live another 10 years with her brain continuing to decay. How many Heroshimans and Nagasakians (and U.S. Airmen) died 20, 30 and 40 years after exposure? Radiation is great stuff, but personally I worry what will happen to me in 2023 if I'm cured of PCa.
However, there is a caveat to the ADT story. If one is on it for many months, sometimes the effects are long lasting and sometimes permanent.
 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
-- 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
Alan Meyer - 23 May 2006 03:41 GMT > On May 18, Alan Meyer replied to WSF, in pertinent part: >> The immediate side effects of radiation may be less than the side [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Alan has posted very broad statements, which could be very worrisome to those who are > considering RT. I think that credible evidence to support them would be helpful. Steve,
I was thinking of the following kinds of side effects:
1. Damage to the tissues around the prostate.
See the recent thread on "Seeding and Rectal Radiation Burns".
As part of my one year followup, my radiation oncologist did a proctoscopy and I watched the image in real-time on the video monitor. He showed me the damage to the rectal wall, and the smooth tissue of the rectum as it appeared beyond the range of the x-rays. He told me that sort of damage was normal. It hasn't caused me any pain or bleeding, but other people have apparently gotten worse cases than I have and have seen such problems.
Bladder damage has also occurred in some patients.
2. Impotence.
I came through radiation with potency largely intact. I think it has suffered some, but it's hard to tell for sure since I'm getting steadily older too (darnit!)
I was told going into radiation that impotence was a real possibility and, apparently it has happened to quite a few radiation patients.
3. Bladder or bowel incontinence.
I believe the incidence of bladder incontinence is much, much lower than for RP, but it is not zero. Bowel incontinence is not zero either.
4. Increases in risk for secondary cancers - mainly of the bladder or rectum.
The increased risk is apparently small, but again, non-zero. I believe that you and I had a discussion about that some time ago and I found some citations for it.
In raising these issues, I'm not trying to scare people away from radiation. In my personal view, radiation poses fewer risks than surgery - which is why I chose it. The risk of incontinence is far less. The risk of infection must be close to zero. The risk of serious blood clots must be near zero (a friend of mine almost died from this after an RP). The risk of some kinds of damage to peripheral structures is less - another friend of mine has lost feeling in a large part of one of his legs after surgery - at Johns Hopkins no less!
I think it's very important for patients to understand that all of the treatments for prostate cancer, certainly including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, do great violence to the body. ADT can do significant damage as well - as witnessed by those of us who have had joint damage after ADT.
I believe that every man should choose his treatment with his eyes wide open, understanding that he's taking significant risks with any treatment. If nothing bad happens to him - that's great. If something bad does happen, at least he won't feel, as so many men do, that they were blind-sided by the after effects and made their treatment choices without understanding what could happen.
Alan
Steve Jordan - 23 May 2006 18:12 GMT On May 22, Alan Meyer replied to me:
(ka-snip cogent responses)
Thanks!
What makes all this so fascinating is that there is so much room for debate.
> I believe that every man should choose his treatment with his > eyes wide open, understanding that he's taking significant risks [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could happen. > A heartfelt "amen" to that. It happens, and all too often. Frex, how many pts are informed by their uro of the substantial risk of penile shrinkage due to RP? Not many, I'll bet. No, I have no basis for that except instinct and what I've observed and heard of the behavior of some uros.
Regards,
Steve J
"Digressions, objections, delight in mockery, carefree mistrust are signs of health; everything unconditional belongs in pathology." --Friedrich Nietzsche
DominicM - 19 May 2006 02:11 GMT My rad onc said RP patinets generally have less side effects than primary RT patients. My se's were minor some bladder urgency and very, very minor fatigue.
DominicM - 19 May 2006 02:22 GMT My rad onc said RP patients generally have less side effects than primary RT patients. My se's were minor some bladder urgency and very, very minor fatigue.
juniper - 23 May 2006 07:42 GMT > My rad onc said RP patients generally have less side effects than > primary RT patients. My se's were minor some bladder urgency and very, > very minor fatigue. juniper - 19 May 2006 04:53 GMT This makes more sense, thanks. What chemo will they do if you get in that arm?
> Thank you all for your concern and advice. To clarify a bit, I am > currently "in the clear" with two post "undetectable, .1 PSAs". The [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > WhiteSoxFan WhiteSoxFan - 19 May 2006 17:18 GMT You can check out the study at this link: http://www.swog.org/Visitors/ViewProtocolDetails.asp?ProtocolID=64
I have been placed in the HT only arm.
WhiteSoxFan
Bill - 21 May 2006 14:45 GMT "To clarify a bit, I am currently 'in the clear' with two post 'undetectable, .1 PSAs'".
Maybe you need to clarify a little more - do you not mean 2 <.1 PSAs? .1 is NOT undetectable.
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .93 Memphis
WhiteSoxFan - 22 May 2006 15:08 GMT Yes, Mr Denton, you are absolutely correct. I should have included the < when I indicated the terminological 'undetectable'. So sorry to have disturbed your sensabilites. I will try to be more clinically perfect in the future. Thank you for pointing out my error. And please in the future let me know a little faster than two days delay when I've made a mistake. I don't want to seem foolish to everyone here for more than a few hours. I like to apologize as soon as possible.
WhyteSocksFahn
Bill - 22 May 2006 15:46 GMT Gee, man, don't go getting testy on us. It has nothing to do w/ my "sensabilities" or "pointing out [your] error" - it has everything to do w/ the quality of advice you will get here: post garbage and you will get garbage. Incredible as it may sound, every now and then there are guys who post here who do not know the difference between a <.1 and .1, which, of course, is fundamental. Although we are indeed laymen, if anyone wants decent advice they need to be as "clinically perfect" as they can be because many of us have dealt w/ this long enough to know that the devil is often in the details. Although it is rare, some days I do not check the group so you are generally on your own. And I'm not taking the bait in your sig. Good try, though.
Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 PSA .93 Memphis
I.P. Freely - 22 May 2006 19:43 GMT > I don't want to seem foolish to everyone here for more than a > few hours. Don't sweat it. Some of us appear foolish most, if not all, of the time.
I.P.
DominicM - 19 May 2006 02:19 GMT Bill thanks for clarification. Being in limbo is no fun. I guess my decision was easier I needed to knock out the PCa while it was presumably
WSF good luck. Not sure what I'd do in your shoes.
|
|
|