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 / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Does Prophylactic Hormone Therapy accelerate Hormone Refractory PcA

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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.
 
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.