Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2007
Need a horse tranquilizer
|
|
Thread rating:  |
callalily - 20 Feb 2007 00:57 GMT Hello everybody,
I started out trying to be brief, but this turned into an incredibly long warble. However, indulge me because warble I must. I am warbling for my life. I need to talk, and only my PC soulmates understand this language.
You know there is a "Ladies Only PC group" on the Cooley site, and I read something there about them planning a cruise. I don't know if they're serious, but wouldn't it be great to go on a cruise with PC people only. It sounds like paradise. To be among your own! And they would have a midnight buffet full of cruciferous vegetables! Anyway, I hope the cruise is not ladies-only because my husb. just loves the idea.
Seriously:
Ever since my husband got his second positive psa test (first one 1/3 (.12), second 2/7 (.l4), I have been understandably upset. The biggest problem is that my body is playing tricks on me.
**A few weeks ago, the day my husband got the first result, I was serving dinner that night and just felt unsteady and I was weaving around like a drunk and bumping into walls. I managed to sit down and asked my husband to bring in the food so that I wouldn't drop everything on the floor. I was really shaking.
Unfortunately, we had to wait almost three weeks before we talked to his surgeon about the result, and it was very nerve-wracking. Additionally, his doctor had been behaving strangely unresponsive, which made us even more nervous. In early Jan. we had made numerous requests from this doc for my husband's path report and "whatever else might be useful to do some nomograms". I just wanted to have this stuff in a file.
Anyway, they never responded. And 3 weeks into that my husband got the positive PSA test (*done for convenience by his internist*) and we immediately called the doc and faxed the result over to the surgeon, but he didn't respond. I wracked my brain to think of an explanation for this slack behavior, and the best one I found, however lame, was suggested to me by another doctor, namely: Some docs just feel threatened when you request records from them. (I am mentioning all this only bec. I know others have experienced it.) But then, a couple of days later, I had an idea which I think is closer to the truth, to wit, my requesting records, plus the fact that I'm in the legal business (I'm sure he had asked me this, conversationally). Anyway, if this is true it's outrageous, because I've never sued anybody in my life. It's like my father used to say, "The shoemaker goes barefoot". So it was disturbing enough to contemplate a possible recurrence of the ca, but it just galled me that the doc was making things so much worse.
I tried to make an appt for J. with an onc, and they told me "Call back when you have all the records in hand". Anyway, I had no choice but to ask Patient Relations to intervene about this whole thing because if this surgeon wanted to fire us, we'd gladly go elsewhere but we have to have the records, for a start.
Anyway, my husband saw the doctor (alone) and what he said was predictable: PSA less than .2 he's not worried about, and come back again in 3 mos and 6 mos. He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed). I am wondering also, since his first test was done by Quest Labs, would it have been a good idea to have them repeat it (5 wks later)? Just a thought.
Anyway, I'm disclosing all this sensitive stuff maybe because I'm self-destructive, or because I don't expect to have any other interactions with this surgeon in the future. All I am concerned about is that he forward all the relevant records.
Because I had once complained about the doctor/vitamin salesman at Columbia (to you all), I told my husband, "We'll have to move away from here because we'll never get medical care in this town again". So he said, "Where do you want to move?". I replied, Baltimore, Cleveland and Rochester, MN, in that order.
This is where somebody might be able to advise: **I forgot to mention that, as advised here, I set up an appt for him with a rad onc for 2/28**.and am trying to make one with a med onc. Anyway, what the surgeon sent me last week as far as "records" was a copy of the original biopsy report, post-op path report and a PSA result done by an ED doctor at that same hospital 6 mos. post op.
I would like the surgeon to turn over everything he has because I feel it's necessary, including stuff forwarded to him initially by J's uro, and also any relevant data of his own, including his notes and copies of any imaging done. Please advise about this. Is this a reasonable request? Is there something specific I should ask for? I don't want to go thru another hassle. [Also, if another hospital requests the info from the surgeon directly, are they going to send the whole file or just the few pages they sent me.]
[Also, I just called J's internist and asked him to prepare his records (some PSA's done there) for pick-up and sent an email to the urologist for the same reason. I am so mixed up that I can't remember where I put any of the stuff I already had. I am hoping these doctors will comply without a hassle.
**Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous. More like terrified. Yesterday at lunch I wasn't feeling well and I was shaking and stuttering (which started in the last few weeks). I also developed a migraine, and my blood pressure went up (did not any of these before his dx).
Then J. got me aggravated: He said to me, "You look sick". Are you stressed out about something? Maybe about your mother being here? So I said, "I'm stressed out but not about that". I think the answer was pretty obvious; you had to see the elephant in the room unless you were shutting your eyes. This is something that absolutely drives me crazy about him: that at every stage of this journey he is in complete denial. I am really getting fed up with this behavior. Also, I told him to ask his ED doctor why his penis is getting crooked and he just never made the call. You'd think he'd care. And for the longest time he said he "did not notice" his genitals "changing shape". Well.
Then last evening J. said to me, "It sound like you're having trouble breathing", and I said, "Not that I know of", but I realized I was pumping breath like a locomotive. Hyperventilating.
My concern is that I feel guilty showing this obvious distress in front of him. Intellectually, he knows that he has a serious problem, but he has not even mentioned it once in a few weeks. I am sitting around reading up on this and making appts. I am starting to get sick of his not doing anything. He is going to the gym all day just to be away from me.
As far as remedies, I have some klonopin for anxiety, and some ambien to sleep. Also, I dug out of my drawer some Inderal I'd been given some time back because I thought it might help with the shaking. But apparently all this is not enough. And this stuff can make you very drowsy.
Honestly, I don't like the idea of J. having more treatments in principle, because it's like, he was already treated for this, it doesn't seem fair. And now I'm skeptical about everything including using rad for recurrence. But nothing terrifies me more than hormone therapy. I think if he is going to die, maybe he shouldn't stretch it out for years (on ADT) and just get it over with. I've concluded that death can be a beautiful thing if done right.
Another change in my life that bothers me is that my whole life has become "cancerized". Yesterday I went "cancer shopping" in the supermarket. I bought whatever is conceivably beneficial to him: fresh watermelon, pink grapefruit, papayas, etc. I wish the supermarket were arranged by color, because everything I need is pink (pom juice, a darker shade). Then I passed a section where they had these pickled peppers and sun-dried tomatoes which were very expensive, and we don't even like them, but I thought they might be good for him. Because here, peppers are king. So I put them in the cart. I don't shop anymore by choosing what I like. [However, I did feel sorry for myself and bought a jar of chestnuts in cognac sauce which was very good. *Does anybody know if a chestnut is a real nut and could substitute for some of the other less appealing nuts on the list?".]
Finally, I went to the herring section, which was the highlight of the tour. But there were at least 15 different types (this is a store that caters to gourmet types), and if you're like me and you can't make decisions, this presented a real challenge. I ended up buying some herring in mustard sauce because the label said it had canola oil (good) and also beta carotene.
I had already bought him a bag of peanuts the other day (because he won't eat walnuts), and he is developing a real belly even though he is going to the gym almost every day. It's the pom juice, spaghetti sauce, nuts and whatever. I read that a belly is not good for a man because of heart attack risk, but better that than the alternative...
Yesterday at lunchtime he told me he was going to have a piece of chicken. I told him, "Wait, "I bought you this absolutely delicious Swedish herring. You must try it". So reluctantly he said OK. He asked if I was having some (and i definitely did *not* feel like it), and I said, "sure".
Then we were sitting at the table and he was serving himself some of the above and he asked, "Would you like some?". I replied, "Why don't you try it first"? He and my mother laughed; it was if I was using him as a "food tester". Then he bit into his herrring sandwich and immediately keeled over. My heart just stopped and my mother screamed.
I asked J. "What's wrong?" and then he jerked himself upright and said he was only playing a joke (acting like he'd been poisoned). Well, some joke. But I was pleased because he took a second helping of the herring.
Also, a few weeks ago, I had bought him a whole lot of supps, but he refuses to take the following: garlic, turmeric, blueberry extract and broccoli sprouts. What's the big problem with a few more pills? And I'm embarrassed to write this, but we don't have much of an income right now (more stressful than ca, if you ask me), and the all-around supplement I ordered from Theralogix (the "meat" of the supplement diet"), was not delivered because of "insufficient funds." This just upset me terribly.
Anyway, at any meal the conversation inevitably turns to what food is good for him.
Another big problem for me is that my mother comes over sometimes and she just drives me crazy. She is just plain obnoxious, I hate to say it. I reluctantly took her to the supermarket with me on Friday, and she did what she always does. Asks, "what do you need this for" and why don't you buy a different brand, and this time, in particular, she was upset because I had treated myself to some roses ($6.99). She insisted it was a frivolous expense and wanted to put it back. I practically slapped her. ______________________________
[OT - Gardening] Skip if you want.
I can't live without flowers. They just cheer me up. This is OT, but I need to warble.
I am very proud of the huge garden my husband and I kept on the roof of our building 11 stories above Manhattan, overlooking the Hudson River. [It was great, but then the bldg. manager said it was a fire hazard? because we were using the hose, and they made us remove everything.]
I am very proud of my potted offspring: The first flower I grew was a pink "dinnerplate" dahlia, and it was just stunning. Husband took pictures of it, and I can remember every detail. We also had about 15 rosebushes (all in pots), exotic plants (hibiscus, lantana, bougainvillea), and lots of flowering plants. We also grew some beautiful delphiniums.
This was a true labor of love, and that's why I am indulging myself in talking about it. It calms me. Container gardening is the best, because you can choose the best potting soil and mix it with whatever you wish, manure, peat moss, bone meal etc. (Also, you can design "living floral arrangements"). We had to go to CT or MA to haul in all that soil and then drag it up 11 floors. Also, it was good because there are no pests or deer to interfere. And the sun shines like crazy, because there is a "solar friendly" surface on this roof. Plus, we fed each type of plant a special diet: rose food, tomato food, flowering plant food, etc. My husband was very devoted to his garden.
Best of all, we grew the most magnificent cherry tomatoes. Before that, I had never tasted a real tomato. And we seasoned it with some home-grown basel (a neighbor who grew herbs said, "Help yourself".) I wish I could have entered these tomatoes into a 4-H contest. Believe it or not, I think they have a branch in NYC. My husband said we should start a produce business called "Manhattan Farms". I also grew the most incredible eggplant (what Mary F. called an "aubergine", as she used the word in a sentence a couple of times, "My son said that his Dad has a c-ck like an aubergine".)
This eggplant was my pride and joy. It was absolutely perfect, blemish free, and a beautiful deep purple. This would definitely have taken first prize in a contest. But I didn't know how to cook the eggplant, and so I gave it to a friend.
Anyway, these are my happy memories.
I know this is off-topic but we have a lot of Brits here, and the stereotype is that they are all crazy about gardening. I know that in my Encyclopedia of Roses, it seems that almost all of them are bred in the UK, in England, Scotland and Ireland.
I was just thinking they should name a rose after PC, and I'm freaking out, because I think there are a number of roses named after various diseases. In fact, I'm sure of it.
_______________________________________
More on PC:
Anyway, in a serious vein: I am going to ask for some help in interpreting the records that I have in front of me: for example, 3 PSA tests done by 3 different labs. But I'll put that in a separate post.
Anyway, apropos of how PC affects my life: my interests have changed dramatically. As google suggested, all I'm interested in is PC, PC and PC. But other diseases are also welcome.
Friday, we had a houseguest who arrived to spend the weekend, one I hadn't know before. He sounded really interesting: his family background, job, travels all over, and he was very personable. (My husband found out yesterday that he does stand-up comedy.)
Anyway, early on Sam mentioned that his father had passed three years ago, and we were immediate best friends, because so had mine (approximately). Then I asked him, "What did your father die of"? and he shook his head sadly but didn't say anything. Then I asked him again, and he practically whispered, "stomach cancer". But was was really interesting was that his father had suffered a massive heart attack at age 42 and had managed to make it to 76.
I don't know anybody personally who's had a heart attack, but my father had a stroke, and it's all in the cardiovascular family, and so I was glad to go on about that.
At some point I had told him that I was very distracted because a "friend of mine" had cancer. I said this only because I needed to explain why I was so spaced out: he had had to ask me four times for a towel (which I usually provide).
Anyway, I got the idea that cancer was not this man's favorite disease. But this is what happened next: I had a piece of paper in front of me, which was a recipe for "Enhanced Tomato Juice", which I was planning to prepare. So he asked me, "What is that?", and I handed the paper to him. Then I realized that on top of it it said loud and clear, "acsp". I was surprised he didn't flee. Anyway, I never got to talk to him about anything but death and disease, which was too bad.
What amuses me is that we have house guests pretty often, and they stay in the guest room, which is also my work space. And it never occurred to me that I should maybe put away all the reading material that's around: stacks of papers about PC, ED, etc. It seems that penile rehab is my favorite subject. But until yesterday I had never thought that maybe I should keep this juicy stuff private.
Also, with my husband, PC dominates the conversation, even tho he doesn't like to talk about the subject. He told me he was concerned that I was spending so much time on PC-related things because I was worried about him. So I told him, "No, this isn't about you, it's about a whole lot of people." I didn't want him to feel nervous.
But he did get excited about an article I found the other day on the "evolutionary biology" of cancer (which I hope to talk about), and so occasionally he does show an interest.
This is not in order, but I have to purge myself of just one thing. I mentioned that I'd had some problems with cooperation from his surgeon, but I didn't want to make a big deal about it. But last Thursday I got a call from a guy who identified himself as a doctor who is "head of quality control" for the Uro dept of that hospital. I told him I really didn't want to talk about this anymore. Anyway, just the fact that this man told me he was reviewing J's records and was looking into this some more, made me frightfully nervous. I mean, is it routine, or what?? Could there be something amiss.
The conversation with this doc somehow got to me, so I called my shrink and told him everything, all the while weeping profusely. Then he said to me, "You know, this is all about guilt: you have a lot of guilt for hating your mother. So you are punishing yourself". Well, I really gave it to him! If he had been there in person I would have punched him out. Truth is, if I didn't like him prsonally, I would take a hike. But I have to have someone impartial to talk to.
Anyway, any advice is welcome.
If you made it until here, thanks for listening. I feel enormously better for having written all this.
Leah
Alan Meyer - 20 Feb 2007 04:11 GMT Dear Leah,
A horse tranquilizer would be a great thing right now. It sounds to me like you really need to decompress.
I figure your PCa problem is serious, but still very, very far from fatal. You're doing all the right things. Supplements may make a significant difference - especially at this early stage when the cancer recurrence, if it is a recurrence, is still very small and weak. The growth rate of the PSA sounds very slow. That may mean it will take a long, long time to develop and, in the meantime, you may be able to zap it successfully with radiation. Salvage radiation doesn't always work, but it really does work a significant percentage of the time, especially when you catch it early, before the PSA reaches 1.0.
If push comes to shove and you have to rely on hormone therapy, that's unfortunate but it beats the hell out of the alternatives. When I was on hormone therapy, I didn't like it, but it didn't do me in either. I still worked every day. I still did all the things I liked doing from reading books and watching movies to writing computer programs, to going out for long walks and dinners with my wife. We even had sex from time to time. HT knocks down a man's libido, but does _not_ destroy his ability to have sex. I wasn't terribly interested when we got started, but once we got into it, all the old feelings came out again and the feelings were just like before. I didn't gain any weight, and I never got depressed.
Steve K. has been on it for 3.5 years already and still has an undetectable PSA. And he's pretty upbeat about life too.
And there are more and more treatments becoming available. It's impossible to know what will happen, but I think there's an excellent chance that your husband will grow old and die of something other than PCa.
Meanwhile, maybe the thing to do is for you and your husband to go get some Chinese carryout, rent the funniest, feel good video you can find, or even two of them, and spend an evening just having a great time.
All the best.
Alan
callalily - 25 Feb 2007 21:45 GMT Dear Alan,
Just wanted to thank you and others who responded to my msg. I am feeling much better now, the panic has gone away except for moments, but, we are still entering a battle, and it ain't over 'til it's over.
We are going to see a rad once next Wednesday, provide J's surgeon gives us all his med. records. Based on my experience, I'm not counting on it. I spent a lot of time in my last msg complaining about the lack of responsiveness from his doctor, and I was not being paranoid in the least. For whatever reason -- and I don't care what it is -- they have just not followed up about anything. I think in part it may be a "clerical" problem. But I just look forward to the day when we can start dealing with a new doc. I can tell you it was not a happy situation to get an adverse test result and then wait to 3 weeks to talk to his doc, he didn't even return a phone call. That's what made me so nervous. My concern with the rad onc is that we will end up buying whatever he is selling. Maybe I should "leave the checkbook at home".
Also, he is "owning" his disease more. He made some phone calls to the doc and also helped me with assembling his med. records. That made a big difference, psychologically.
You feel worse when things are in limbo like we are, between diagnoses, so to speak. Once you settle on a course, any course, it becomes easier. And I think what makes PC difficult is all the uncertainty surrounding the disease, the lack of consensus. As I mentioned, the NCI called PC a "morass". I read that even docs find it "stressful" to treat PC because of this.
I got copies of some of his med. records recently and they contained 3 path reports (done within a month), all having a different Gleason score. I mean, is this a crapshoot? The first one, done by uro, was 3+4, (Quest), the second (a review of the first) was 3+3 (NY Hosp. Lab), and the post-op one was 4+3 (NY Hosp). So go sort this out. I had also read Scardino in the beginning and told the uro I wanted to have his biopsy reviewed by an expert at Sloan or Hopkins, like the book said. The uro assured me that the pathologists at the hospital were experts in PC and so it wasn't necessary, and I relied on that. But they were far off the mark.
What makes this even more depressing is that his post-op path report looks so beautiful. Negative for everything, except a mention of "perineural invasion". What does that mean?
Iin the meantime, you may be able to zap it successfully with radiation. �Salvage
> radiation doesn't always work, but it really does work a significant > percentage of the time, especially when you catch it early, > before the PSA reaches 1.0. Having trouble with those wretched decimals again! I can't quote you chapter and verse, but I have read that salv rad is done on a lot of people who won't benefit from it. Same as with other PC treatments. Dr. Catalona wrote a good article on who are the best candidates, so that's helpful.
> If push comes to shove and you have to rely on hormone therapy, > that's unfortunate but it beats the hell out of the alternatives. Just wanted to explain that what I fear about hormone therapy is more the psych effects than the physical effects. Hormones control our brains as much as our genitals. So it's not just about physical sex. Hardly.
>From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or just to the PC), and their wives often find them sullen and distant. At least there are many bitter complaints of this sort. What I have heard so many times is, "Since his treatment, he only pays attention to the dog".
I think the ethic in this group is to keep a stiff upper lip, that it's not manly to complain. Because in other groups I read much more about PC's effects on the person's inner self. You don't see much of that here. So when Hughie asked what to do about the emotional effects of HT, I was thinking, "Good luck". Also, I'm sure all treatments affect relationships, but I know a professor and PC survivor who I've quoted here a number of times, and he has done a lot of research on how HT affects relationships. And he says the news is not good.
> When I was on hormone therapy, I didn't like it, but it didn't > do me in either. I still worked every day. That's a blessing. My husb. works some days but he does not have a steady job to distract him from this problem. That concerns me. In fact, he just told me that he has work for Thurs. and Fri. doing medical copyediting. He has had to learn all sorts of new things. And I'm concerned about what he'll do on Mon, Tues and Wed.
I was thinking the other day that cancer destroys the body and unemployment the spirit. Also, it's possible to die with dignity, but if you're out of work you can't live with dignity. Just my opinion. I have mentioned here that when my husb. had been diagnosed with PC, he had just started a job (as a tech. writing consultant), and he was very happy there and I was afraid they would boot him out as soon as he told them he had to take off time, etc...luckily it didn't happen. But consider that many people who get sick have no protections whatsoever from this sort of thing.
I've also mentioned that my husband did work similar to yours, computer programming, and he was laid off from a long-time job with a good company at age 50. It's hard to reinvent yourself at that age, and you face widespread discrimination when you look for work. You also face the practical issue of needing money to live on (even if you have savings). And you don't have health insurance either, or, like my husband, you bounce around from one doc to another when you changed insurances. That makes for bad medical care. In fact, I think this is what "killed" my husb. In the last few years he has not had an interested, caring doc, just drive thrsu. If things had been otherwise, he almost certainly would have had a PSA test before age 53. He has a family history. He used to see my doctor, who is top- notch, but had to switch for insurance reasons. My doc told me that no way would he skip a PSA test on a man over 50. He even asked me if I wanted him to go thru his files, that maybe he had an old PSA test for J. But J. would have been too young. So there.
The reason I mention all this is not that I have a need to talk about right now, but our story is similar to that of many other families, and that's why I share this baggage. Even if some of it is embarrassing.
I HT knocks down a man's libido, but does _not_ destroy his
> ability to have sex. I wasn't terribly interested when we got > started, but once we got into it, all the old feelings came out > again and the feelings were just like before. Like I said, it's mostly not about the sex act. In fact, since I found out this bad news, I have no interest in the above whatsoever. For me, sex and death don't mix. When you have more important concerns, you don't think about having sex. At least I don't.
> Steve K. has been on it for 3.5 years already and still has an > undetectable PSA. And he's pretty upbeat about life too. Steve K. is blessed with a lot of resources, as he himself pointed out. So that certainly makes a difference in his "resistance" to this disease. But I have to point out that most people today are not getting sick and dying with generations of offspring lovingly caring for them. Steve's response to Doug T. set me thinking about all this. You know, I read that most Americans today do not live in "traditional" families. (Over 50%). Now I know Manhattan is not typical, but it does reflect trends that are all over the country. I was thinking of the people that live on my floor in my bldg. and thought it provided a good example. So here I go. These are my neighbors:
(A) There is me and J, married, no children, had to care for sick father for a year (serious stroke) and mother for the last three years has needed a lot of attention. I am putting this in the "caring for elderly parents" category as it relates to family. (B) Next door is Tracy, a divorcee with a teenage son, who seems to have a serious boyfriend. She is very capable, but has struggled financially, because her son is in an expensive private school. She says it's because he's slightly autistic, but I don't see any trace of it. But she knows better. (C) Next is a middle-aged couple who moved in recently (I'm embarrassed that I don't even know there names). They had raised a family in NJ (suburbs) and then came here to "retire". (D) A middle- aged, never married man who lives with his girlfriend (I think). As I said, they're not married, even though they've been together forever. Don't know why. (E) An old lady who is very sick with emphysema, etc., wheelchair-bound and on oxygen. She had a close friend who used to spend a lot of time with her, but that woman died. (Incidentally, that relationship might have been more than platonic, IMO.) Now, all this woman has is a home attendant to care for her. (F) A young woman, premed student at Princeton, absolutely lovely girl, who lives alone and comes home on vacations. Both her parents died of cancer. She is an only child. Sometimes her aunt and uncle come by and stay in that apt.
Anyway, things are not like they were even a few generations ago. It seems that my mother expected one of her 5 children to invite her to live with them after my father died, but it didn't happen. I told her she was living in a new world. A new reality. We were encouraging her to go to an "assisted living" facility but she resisted. I asked her why, and she said, "Because somebody might ask me what I'm doing here if I have raised 5 children". Touche.
Anyway, to wrap this up, prostate cancer is not a bad or good disease, it's a different disease to every person. The other day I was in the library reading the Castle-Connoly Cancer book, and after looking at some of the other ca's, I wanted to go home and hug the PC. But how you respond to a disease is not just a matter of attitude, although that counts for a lot. It depends on what you have on the debit and credit side of the ledger. I read the other day a post from a woman who begged for help, saying her husband was suicidal. He had just been diagnosed with PC, but before that, he had had every disease on the planet. So no wonder he felt bad. For once, I was tongue-tied.
All this reminds me of a legal maxim: "You take your victim as you find him." What that means is that if you have an intent to harm someone and you tap them on the shoulder and they happen to be brittle and fall down and die, you might be charged with murder. Tough luck. I think cancer is a lot like that, it takes it's victims as it find them. Those who have been weakened by other things may not stand up to the ca as well than others. It's not just about character.
Anyway, I rambled as usual, but I think maybe for a purpose this time.
Anyway, you sound like you're doing well and I wish you the very best. And keep ondoing the yoga or meditation or whatever it is that makes you so serene.:-)
Best,
Leah
I.P. Freely - 25 Feb 2007 22:48 GMT > From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a > lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > about PC's effects on the person's inner self. You don't see much of > that here. Much of that is because when I do bring it up, with references, several people here raise various degrees of hell, some saying -- and refusing to cite their sources -- that pills will fix just about everything. You weren't in this forum yet when a geriatric psychologist whose pts are mostly old men told me that ADT has virtually destroyed the psyches and personal relationships of many of her pts. She advised me to consider it only as an absolutely last resort, when my PC symptoms are significant and can be mitigated no other way.
> I was thinking the other day that cancer destroys the body and > unemployment the spirit. Also, it's possible to die with dignity, but > if you're out of work you can't live with dignity. Unless, of course, one has or generates other passions and isn't fiscally deprived.
I.P.
callalily - 27 Feb 2007 23:59 GMT Dear All,
> > From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a > > lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > about PC's effects on the person's inner self. You don't see much of > > that here. IP wrote:
> Much of that is because when I do bring it up, with references, several > people here raise various degrees of hell, some saying -- and refusing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I.P. I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to bash ADT. It is a treatment that prolongs life. So It is an important part of the arsenal we have to fight Pca. In fact, my husb. already told me, if he needs HT, he'll be first in line. I can't say I'm thrilled about it. But I do think the experience could be greatly improved and fewer relationships would be damaged, with some *intervention* or even just ordinary *conversation*. Couples therapy should be a standard part of HT treatment, but at the moment it is not done. That is what the prof I cited recommends, and he says it works.
HT (and other PC treatments!), can cause a lot of distress not just to men, but to their partners. In some of my other forums, I see an enormous amount of anger, rage, and bitterness directed at the men, and I think this is because there isn't enough communication between the couple. Someone here once said a woman can't read a man's mind, but we try and do anyway. Women see rejection in everything. They see selfishness and neglect. I honestly don't know what the man feels. Probably hurt, fear, anger, rejection, inadequacy, etc.
And the woman is afraid too, really afraid. Just recently, Dragonlady wrote that she was "terrified" about her husband's illness. I felt bad for her, but I didn't know what to say. [Dragonlady: your husband doesn't have advanced illness at this point, so keep that in perspective.]
Anyway, both parties in a relationship may suffer greatly, and I think this could be remedied. The last thing a man with PC needs is an angry wife. And every wife feels some anger, however irrational, just because of the man getting sick on her!
This is a tragedy that need not be so. Many relationships could probably be saved with counseling or just some plain speaking from the heart. Normally, I'm not a big advocate of therapy, but I think here it's essential. It should be a part of treatment with HT. Otherwise, couples should be given some advice on how to discuss their feelings with one another.
I, for one, have written to a number of these women that I just could not believe that their men, who were loving, caring, sweet and generous a month ago, have suddenly become selfish and brutish. A person's underlying character doesn't change in a flash.
Anyway, here are some samples from the PC and Intimacy goup on yahoo. It should give you a better idea of what goes on on the other side of the "sex divide".
[Jane Doe]
"I am writing this to tell you guys in the group that It is not fair to keep your touch from the women you love. Even when you know you cannot perform sexually touch is still important to both of you". ________________
[Jane Doe #2]
"Here is a hypothetical question for all of you guys. If your wife needed help being fed and she was hungry but you weren't, would you take the time to prepare something for her then help her even though you didn't eat? Sex is the same. Most women (even those who appear strong and say they are okay with celebacy) have a hunger for some sex, be it only playful touching.
I don't know how to say this delicatly, but most men, think that the only way a woman can be satisfied is with a nice hard penis. It ain't so. My husband has on a rare occasion given me enormous pleasure with his touch, fingers and tongue. Even though you can't have sexual pleasure any more, why deprive your wife? If it was the other way around I am sure she would still do wonderful things to you. I would anyway.
Talk this over with your wives guys and let her know that right now you cannot get an erection (or at least it is difficult) but you still want to play with her. Make this your New Years resolution. " _________________
Leah
I.P. Freely - 28 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT > I just want to make it clear that I was not trying to bash ADT. You presented facts. Many people here and across the globe -- consider Pelosi's classic example last week -- equate facts with emotions and judgment. You and I can't change that association, so we may as well just present facts and let people use them as they wish, for practical purposes or fodder for their emotions. It seems awfully silly to me to squelch facts because some people feel offended by them.
> Couples therapy should be a standard part of HT treatment Absolutely. But that will take some work, considering that so many doctors prescribe ADT without even telling the *patient* a lot about it.
> I, for one, have written to a number of these women that I just could
> not believe that their men, who were loving, caring, sweet and > generous a month ago, have suddenly become selfish and brutish. A > person's underlying character doesn't change in a flash. Character, no; behavior, yes. T depletion, whether natural, surgical, or chemical, devastates many men's emotions.
I.P.
callalily - 28 Feb 2007 00:07 GMT Dear All,
> > From what I have read in other groups (especially PC and Intimacy), a > > lot of men do have emotional reactions to HT (for whatever reason) (or [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > I.P. Just wanted to clarify. I don't want to bash ADT. Clearly, it prolongs life and has a place in the PC arsenal. I just think it can be made easier on couples with some mandatory counseling that should be part of the treatment. If not, couples should be told how to communicate to their partners what they're really feeling, so that the partner doesn't misinterpret it. The prof I cited says this does work.
You know women always see rejection or selfishness when the man is really feeling hurt, inadequate, afraid, angry or whatever.
Let's try to make this treatment better. For the time being, we're stuck with it.
Leah
callalily - 28 Feb 2007 00:09 GMT Sorry for this posting twice. I thought the first one didn't go thru so I rewrote it. So you have the long version and the abbreviated one.
Leah
I.P. Freely - 28 Feb 2007 03:06 GMT > Sorry for this posting twice. I thought the first one didn't go thru > so I rewrote it. So you have the long version and the abbreviated > one. NOW you tell us. ;-)
I.P.
Alan Meyer - 26 Feb 2007 03:17 GMT > ... > Anyway, you sound like you're doing well and I wish you the very [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Leah I'm in a hotel room by the Newark airport at the moment, hoping that the snow won't cancel our flight tomorrow to the Caribbean. I'm ready for a week in the sun - which is even better than yoga or meditation.
Everybody deals with the hard problems in life in a different way. My own way is probably unique to me and might even seem laughable to others, but here it is.
I try to put my life in perspective, to see it in terms of the progress of life in general. I firmly believe that all of us are, quite literally, cousins. We share almost all of our DNA and have a myriad of common ancestors. When I die, all of my cousins will still be around, and our descendents will carry on after us. Nevermind whether or not we ourselves have children, all of the children of the world belong to us. All of them, quite literally, carry almost all the same DNA as us.
After I die, the great music made by our cousin Mozart will continue to be played and enjoyed. Our cousin Groucho Marx's movies will still be broadcast on TV. The tremendous work that our cousins Gallileo and Newton started, and that was taken up by our cousins from Dalton to Darwin and from Einstein to Feynman will be taken up further by our children and their children.
In short, although I will die, none of the things that I loved will die. They'll go right on developing. The progress of the human spirit will not stop. I have been a tiny part of that progress, a drop of water in the stream. But the stream is the big thing and it will go on and on.
Maybe that's deep, or maybe it's just silly, but thinking about it keeps me from focusing on my troubles and makes me more appreciative of what I've been given, as it were.
And besides all that, I know that I've led a charmed life. I've had a great marriage, and a simple but happy career. I've read many wonderful books and through them listened to the ideas of some of the greatest thinkers who have ever lived. I was born in a great country and never had to deal with the poverty and oppression and ignorance that afflicts so many people all over the world.
I know it will all come to an end, but I have to believe that, when the end comes, I'll have nothing to complain about. And in the meantime I mean to enjoy every minute that I can.
All the best.
Alan
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 04:44 GMT > And besides all that, I know that I've led a charmed life. I've had > a great marriage, and a simple but happy career. I've read many [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the end comes, I'll have nothing to complain about. And in the > meantime I mean to enjoy every minute that I can. Not silly at all, Alan. And I also think most of us in this forum now are extremely fortunate to have lived in what may prove to be the best lifespan available on the planet. Times were pretty rough in the last '30s and early '40s, and I suspect they will be much, *much* worse by the next '20s. Many of us were born in the '40s, and won't have to face the upcoming '20s. I was even very fortunate in the very narrow 20-year window I happen to have spent in the military, and fortunate even in the timing of my precious sports, which outside my wife are the highlights of my life. My wife's career had some very fortuitous timing, as well.
I often wonder how many people feel that way . . . whether I'm kidding myself thinking my accidental timing in many arenas was superb.
I don't think so.
I.P.
safire - 26 Feb 2007 09:17 GMT >> I was born in a >> great country and never had to deal with the poverty and >> oppression and ignorance that afflicts so many people all over >> the world. Amen.
> Times were pretty rough in the last > '30s and early '40s, and I suspect they will be much, *much* worse by > the next '20s. How come? Please explain. There is a considerable risk that this recent procedure that I went through may extend my lifetime so as to live through the next '20s. The NCCN decision tree did not take external quality of life factors into account.
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 16:39 GMT >> Times were pretty rough in the last '30s and early '40s, and I suspect >> they will be much, *much* worse by the next '20s. > > How come? Please explain. I've been watching radical Islam emerge and WMDs proliferate for 40 years. Anyone -- such as the left half of the U.S. and most of Europe -- who doesn't comprehend the threat they pose to the entire world isn't paying any attention. The primary two world leaders who get it, Bush and Blair, are going down in flames as the world swallows everything the hard left media puts out -- and *doesn't* put out -- there (did you even know, for example, that the insurgents began using WMDs last month? You *have* seen Ahmadinejad's Hitlerian speeches, right?). Do you realize that some people -- about 100,000,000 in the U.S. alone, including the leaders of Congress, laughably think that diplomacy, appeasement, and forfeiting the war radical Islam began will *slow* the world's march towards nuclear terrorism funded by relatively infinite oil wealth? Does the public even begin to comprehend the potential gravity of the fact that Muslims will comprise 50% of Russia's military within ten years . . . with access to its technology and quite possibly to Middle Eastern oil wealth?
'Nuff said? Good; I'll spare readers the next 100 pages.
I.P.
dave perry - 26 Feb 2007 20:14 GMT > > I.P. Freely wrote:> > I've been watching radical Islam emerge and WMDs proliferate for 40 > years. I agree that radical Islam is our biggest threat but it's too bad we chose to fight it by invading Iraq and taking out Saddam who was probably as big a foe to radical Islam as we are. Now, after four years of lies and fiasco, after about a half trillion dollars, after 3000+ American lives, after the slaughter of countless innocent citizens of Iraq - now we're upset that many are saying enough. If Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more Middle-East oil," Americans, given their emotions at the time, would have gladly walked to work on their knees so that we could put all our resources into fighting Osama, the Taliban and others of that ilk. Instead, everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military solutions and the war on terror has been set back years if not decades.
As for this being the best of times, I agree. As for the future, the terror threat will at the very least deplete our resources so that our standard of living must suffer. We have spent countless billions (a trillion?) in response to an attack that cost the price of a few flying lessons, a dozen plane tickets and some box cutters. At that rate, it won't take long for our treasury to be exhausted way before they run out of box cutters. Dave Perry
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 21:21 GMT > after four years of lies I'm so tired of hearing that. In the literally hundreds of debates I've heard on that specific issue, I have yet to hear even *one* lie named and supported by published facts.
> after about a half trillion dollars The cost to the U.S. alone of 9/11 cost exceeded a trillion dollars years ago, and is is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the next major shoe to drop.
> after 3000+ American lives Another relative drop in the bucket.
> after the slaughter of countless innocent citizens of Iraq Saddam *deliberately* slaughtered 25 times as many Iraqi civilians as this war *accidentally* killed, the vast majority of Iraqi civilians killed in this war were *deliberately targeted* by radical *Muslims*, and *many* U.S. soldiers' lives were lost due to our direct efforts to minimize Iraqi civilian lives.
> now we're upset that many are saying enough. The free world doesn't have the luxury of saying "enough"; that privilege is rapidly being granted to the enemy, who every week renews its vow to declare "Enough!" only when your blood line is extinguished or converted.
> If > Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more > Middle-East oil," yada yada yada Among the dozens of arguments against that stupid mantra is that we got 3% of our oil from Iraq. We'd need even less if the same people who say they want to wean us from oil would stop opposing the entire long list of alternatives from windmills to ANWAR to shale oil.
> everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military solutions Not everyone. The opposition includes: A. Those who realize it is the *only* solution to such forces as Kruschev, Hitler, and radical Islam. B. Those who still have the backbone to do what it takes to protect their descendants. C. Those who realize that anything less than military solutions to radical Islam is like a 40-year-old "fighting" Gleason 10 T3 PC with WW . . . without watching. D. Those who comprehend that our previous similar withdrawals cost many millions of lives, even without being followed home. E Many of those paying attention to the situation beyond what they see in the New York Times and on CNN.
> the war on terror has been set back years if not decades. The war *from* terrorism has also been set back years *by* our war *on* terror (didn't MSNBC mention that the terrorist body count conservatively exceeds 50,000?). That's how war works. When we quit, the war will return, on steroids. We won the Cold War only because Russians enjoy life; radical Muslims exalt in martyrdom, and are thus not deterred by our might; they are deterred only one martyr at a time, and only by his/her death.
> As for this being the best of times, I agree. As for the future, the > terror threat will at the very least deplete our resources so that our [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > rate, it won't take long for our treasury to be exhausted way before > they run out of box cutters. The minute they get nukes and a tanker or 18-wheeler to deliver 'em in, we won't be concerned about box cutters. What's that? They already *have* tankers and semis? Drat . . . two down, one to go.
I.P.
dave perry - 27 Feb 2007 03:03 GMT > > after four years of lies > > I'm so tired of hearing that. In the literally hundreds of debates I've > heard on that specific issue, I have yet to hear even *one* lie named > and supported by published facts. Call 'em what you like. Perhaps "faulty intelligence" or "whoppers" or "misunderstandings" or "insufficient intelligence" would be more suitable. I prefer "organized deception" myself.
> The cost to the U.S. alone of 9/11 cost exceeded a trillion dollars > years ago, and is is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the > next major shoe to drop. To paraphrase the late Senator Dirkson from Illinois, "A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon we're talking big money." I believe the money could have been better spent fighting the Taliban and Osama rather than pissing it away in Iraq.
> > after 3000+ American lives > > Another relative drop in the bucket. Maybe so but I would rather these lives be spent fighting the original gang of terrorists in Afghanistan.
> > after the slaughter of countless innocent citizens of Iraq
> Saddam *deliberately* slaughtered 25 times as many Iraqi civilians as > this war *accidentally* killed, the vast majority of Iraqi civilians > killed in this war were *deliberately targeted* by radical *Muslims*, > and *many* U.S. soldiers' lives were lost due to our direct efforts to > minimize Iraqi civilian lives. Saddam was a bastard, no doubt about that. However there are plenty of bastards around the world, all living quite comfortably with little threat from the US or anyone else. I can accept bastards born that way but not those who acquire that status. Apparently only those few who sit on oil are to be despised.>
> > now we're upset that many are saying enough. > > The free world doesn't have the luxury of saying "enough"; that > privilege is rapidly being granted to the enemy, who every week renews > its vow to declare "Enough!" only when your blood line is extinguished > or converted. I agree. The problem is we've wasted our enthusiasm and resources to fight the real enemy by following a course that has led us into this quagmire from which we may never extricate ourselves.
> > Mr. Bush, in the first few days after 9/11, had proclaimed "No more > > Middle-East oil," yada yada yada [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > they want to wean us from oil would stop opposing the entire long list > of alternatives from windmills to ANWAR to shale oil. I never said "oil from Iraq." I said "Middle-East oil" and we will never be free of their oil as long as the only plane allowed to fly over US territory on 9/12 was carrying the Saudi royal family to safety nor as long as Exxon, Texaco, et al have interests in the region. As for the long list of alternatives, most on that list aren't worth squat. Shale has good potential and nuclear is gaining ground even among its biggest foes since they've learned nuclear produces no carbon dioxide. As for windmills, one lonely windmill on the prairie is bucolic. Ten thousand are downright ugly.>
> > everyone is now soured on the whole idea of military solutions > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > E Many of those paying attention to the situation beyond what they see > in the New York Times and on CNN. Agreed. However, the military solution is in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Somalia, the ghettoes of Great Britain, and perhaps Detroit. Saddam had Iraq under control with an iron fist and he was almost as opposed to radical Islam as we are. Now look what we've done. >
> > the war on terror has been set back years if not decades. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > deterred by our might; they are deterred only one martyr at a time, and > only by his/her death. Agreed again. I think you and I equally see the danger, we just disagree on what's been done so far to accomplish a common end.
Your compadre in diapers, Dave Perry
I.P. Freely - 27 Feb 2007 04:34 GMT > Call 'em what you like. Perhaps "faulty intelligence" or "whoppers" > or "misunderstandings" or "insufficient intelligence" would be more > suitable. I prefer "organized deception" myself. That's the same response the vast majority of accusers provide: vague generalities. Any specific allegations are disproved by facts or by pointing out that the first specific, dire warnings about radical Islam's intolerable threat to the free world came from Bill Clinton in response to the French detective who outed Al Qaeda and to many unrequited acts of terrorism on the U.S. on Clinton's watch.
> I would rather these lives be spent fighting the original > gang of terrorists in Afghanistan. That's like fighting communism only in Berkely. Radical Islam has cells in well over 100 nations.
I'm sorry, but the rest just slips into more unsupported canned talking points contrary to facts. I think we need to stick to our diapers.
Oh, wait . . . I already do sometimes. ;-)
I.P.
Steve Kramer - 26 Feb 2007 11:31 GMT > Not silly at all, Alan. And I also think most of us in this forum now are > extremely fortunate to have lived in what may prove to be the best [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I often wonder how many people feel that way . . . whether I'm kidding > myself thinking my accidental timing in many arenas was superb. I often consider that my values and convictions were more readily accepted a couple of decades before the one in which I was born. But, I too have wondered about the time and place of my existence. So many things, good things, have happened to me in my life and career where the principle causative factor was timing. I like to think that I was born to a pretty good family, in one of the best cities in arguably the best country of the greatest era in the history of man.
Never in the history of the United States was there a span of peace such as the one between '73 and Sadam. During my life, travel became interterstrial; disease was substantially rebuffed; instant communications with people from all over the world became possible; virtual teleportation to anywhere in the world instantly became possible; knowledge from all the libraries of the world came to my fingertips, etc.
Unfortunately, I also agree the future is bleak. Our President cannot keep the terrorists at bay across the oceans much longer, especially with the seditionists and terrorist sympathizers on this side of the ocean. Even if he could keep up the effort, eventually, the terrorists will target our homeland. Death will come to visit our men, women and children and the rights and privileges we have know all our lives will erode.
Yessir, in some ways, prostate cancer is a gift.
I.P. Freely - 26 Feb 2007 18:14 GMT > I too have > wondered about the time and place of my existence. So many things, good > things, have happened to me in my life and career where the principle > causative factor was timing. I hear "timing", add "place", and must add an even greater synergistic influence in some ways: initiative. I can think of no place on earth that can reward individual initiative like the U.S. can, whether it's the likes of Bill Gates or just my having chosen every job and transfer I had in my 20 years in uniform.
> Never in the history of the United States was there a span of peace such as > the one between '73 and Sadam. And both my wife and I feel privileged in helping to keep it that way, through our efforts in the Cold War . . . which ended the year I retired. I like to think that we both advanced the destruction of the Berlin Wall by a few minutes.
> During my life, travel became > interterstrial; disease was substantially rebuffed; instant communications > with people from all over the world became possible; virtual teleportation > to anywhere in the world instantly became possible; knowledge from all the > libraries of the world came to my fingertips, etc. Well said, and I, probably as you, could add a long list of life-altering opportunities of a more personal nature, such as . . . My fortuitous introduction to what I consider God's Country -- the American desert southwest -- and its climate, its unique open spaces, and its unlimited recreation, at its peak. My introduction to even better (read: safer for middle-aged bodies) recreation and subsequent relocation to its North American epicenter near *its* peak. My success at achieving those moves due to great personal effort and initiative. Our luck at beginning our mutual fund investment blitz in 1992 -- when we had to borrow to pay our income taxes -- and our dedication to maxing it out during the market's 10-year trip to the moon. (We are very comfortable now thanks in large part to the long list of money-saving steps I posted here months ago as a means for most people to avoid poverty and buy health insurance.) Speaking of the moon, I not only watched it all happen real time but helped us get there, thanks to time and place serendipity (I lived down the street from Werner Von Braun and worked in the same building as he at his peak).
The list could go on at length, because every time I feel like whining that I won't live forever, I remind myself of what I've been blessed to do and see and achieve. Sure, many people have outdone me, but *life's*not*a*competition*, and Gates and Turner and even some Hollywood lunatics *add* to my life. I've had a helluva life, due to timing, place, initiative, and good fortune, and while cancer may cut it short, it can't take away what's already been experienced. I hope to smile all the way to the grave, or at least to my final bed.
> Unfortunately, I also agree the future is bleak. Our President cannot keep > the terrorists at bay across the oceans much longer, especially with the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yessir, in some ways, prostate cancer is a gift. Absolutely, consciously agree, even if my PC *hadn't* literally saved my life (my colon cancer doc reaffirmed that just last week).
When you start feeling down, folks, add to your written list and appraisal of your blessings. It won't cure your cancer, but it is as good as ADT in one sense: it holds it at bay for a while.
I.P.
callalily - 26 Feb 2007 05:02 GMT Dear Alan,
> ... > I'm in a hotel room by the Newark airport at the moment, hoping > that the snow won't cancel our flight tomorrow to the Caribbean. I'm > ready for a week in the sun - which is even better than yoga or > meditation. Newark. Just a "heartbeat" away. Why didn't you tell me? Could have stopped by. Have a wonderful trip. I didn't know it was supposed to snow tomorrow. I'm very excited for my husband. On Sunday, he is off to Jupiter, FL, with a couple of friends to watch spring training, and I'm sure he will have a wonderful time.
There is so much "deep" stuff in this letter, I need some time to digest it.
Thanks for writing it.
Leah
> Everybody deals with the hard problems in life in a different way. > My own way is probably unique to me and might even seem [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Alan rosbif - 02 Mar 2007 08:59 GMT > I can't quote you >chapter and verse, but I have read that salv rad is done on a lot of >people who won't benefit from it. Same as with other PC treatments. >Dr. Catalona wrote a good article on who are the best candidates, so >that's helpful. I'd be interested in that. Can you post up or point to it, Leah?
callalily - 02 Mar 2007 15:38 GMT Dear Rosbif,
Happy to oblige. I happened to look up your numbers and got -- yet another -- chuckle out of this: (11/21/06): "After 2 years of WW I, . . . " At 100+ , it's no wonder you're having prostate problems.
I hope the Catalona article (summer '04) is not outdated by medical standards. Note that he mentions that these studies were based on tx with older methods of rad. We were supposed to see the rad onc on Wednesday, but spouse got a new tech. writing assignment, so we rescheduled for 2 weeks. I will ask the doc whether there are any updates.
You must be telephathic; I was about to send this to a guy in India.
Take care.
Leah _________________
New Results for Postoperative Radiotherapy
By William J. Catalona, MD --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several previous articles in QUEST and on the drcatalona.com website address postoperative radiotherapy, but recent reports have increased our knowledge, and this article supplements those previous ones. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History
In the past, we, and other researchers, analyzed 4-year studies of the effect of postoperative radiotherapy on recurring prostate cancer after a radical prostatectomy. The figures looked pretty good, and we reported, with some optimism, that postoperative radiotherapy worked in saving lives.
It has become clear from recent studies that some patients are far more likely to benefit from postoperative radiotherapy than others, depending upon the particular features of their tumor, their PSA level at the time of treatment, and the dose and technique of radiotherapy used.
For instance, favorable features would be a low PSA level at the time of treatment, a more slowly rising PSA level, a lower Gleason grade, and a higher dose of radiation.
Unfavorable features would be the presence of seminal vesicle invasion, lymph node metastases, a high and/or rapidly rising PSA, and a high Gleason grade. The presence of positive surgical margins has been found to be a favorable feature in some studies but not others.
Also, the duration of follow-up affects the results of postoperative radiotherapy. With longer follow-up, more patients are found to relapse.
Thus, the results of postoperative radiotherapy are strongly influenced by the patient mix. In series of patients who are selected with favorable features, postoperative radiotherapy is more successful than in those that include patients with unfavorable features. However, many patients have mixed features. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the past, some physicians have felt that patients having certain adverse features such as lymph node metastases, seminal vesicle invasion, very high Gleason grade, or a persistently detectable or rapidly rising PSA after surgery should not be treated with postoperative radiotherapy.
Rather, hormonal therapy would be deemed more appropriate, because these patients would have a high likelihood of having distant metastases. Furthermore, to date there is no proof that postoperative radiotherapy can reduce the ultimate incidence of distant metastases or improve survival.
Recent studies have shed some new light on this controversial area of prostate cancer treatment. Although the results differ from study to study, part of the reason for these differences lie in the types of patients included, the radiation techniques used, and the length of follow-up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjuvant and Salvage
Postoperative radiotherapy has two categories: adjuvant and salvage.
Adjuvant is preventive treatment closely following a radical prostatectomy. It is recommended after surgery reveals adverse pathologic findings that indicate a likely spread of the cancer beyond the prostate gland but, at the same time, the patient has an undetectable PSA.
Salvage radiotherapy is the treatment recommended when, after a RRP and upon follow-up testing, a patient has a rising PSA. It has been thought that salvage radiotherapy has the potential to cure patients with cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephenson Study
A recent journal article, (Stephenson, JAMA 2004) being read by doctors with a great deal of interest, reported on patients they had followed for almost four years to watch the effects of postoperative radiotherapy.
Because doctors are using the information, I think our readers should be familiar with it.
In that 4-year period, approximately 50% of patients who received salvage radiotherapy for a rising PSA after radical prostatectomy showed further cancer progression; 10% developed distant metastases, and 4% died of prostate cancer.
Factors other than a rising PSA figured into the results. Progression was more likely to occur in men with a Gleason score of 8 or more, a PSA level of 2 or higher before radiotherapy, negative surgical margins, a PSA doubling time of 10 months or less after a RRP, or seminal vesicle involvement.
The idea that negative surgical margins might be a factor in prostate cancer progression is a paradoxical finding. The proposed explanation is that patients with positive margins are more likely to have a tumor recurrence within the bed of the prostate; whereas, those with negative margins are more likely to have a distant recurrence. However, I am not convinced of this explanation, and our data does not confirm it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among patients with none of these adverse features present, 77% with a rising PSA after RRP remained free of cancer progression for 4 years. And some patients with only one adverse finding fared surprising well.
For instance, 64% of men with a rapid PSA doubling time remained free of recurrence for 4 years if their Gleason grade was 7 or less and their surgical margins were positive.
Also, patients with a Gleason score of 8 or higher had a progression free survival of 81% if they were treated early, had a PSA doubling time longer than 10 months and positive surgical margins.
Therefore, some patients with high-grade cancer and/or a rapid PSA doubling times who were previously thought to be destined to develop metastases may respond well to radiotherapy, at least for a 4-year period.
If Stephenson is correct, some patients with recurring prostate cancer can be optimistic that postoperative radiotherapy might, at least, postpone the spread of CaP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Longer Study
Recently, my research group (including Dr. Misop Han, Jonathan Rubenstein, and Kimberly Roehl) updated our results analyzing the effects of postoperative radiotherapy with a longer follow-up, projected 10-year outcomes.
We found a significant decrease in progression-free rates with these longer follow-ups. In other words, the postoperative radiotherapy might not have worked as well as we thought.
In the salvage treatment setting that was recommended because of a rising PSA, we evaluated 307 patients.
Overall, PSA levels fell to undetectable in 73% of patients after radiotherapy. We observed favorable responses more often in men without seminal vesicle invasion and in those with a lower PSA at the time of treatment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we did not confirm better response rates in men with positive surgical margins. In this finding, our results conflict with Stephenson's.
With long-term follow-up, though, only 25% of all patients had lasting responses to salvage radiotherapy. (The 5-year response rate was 55% and 10-year rate was 35%.) It is important to note, however, that many patients with long-term follow-up were treated with older radiotherapy methods that are not as effective as those currently in routine use.
One of our conclusions is that we need more studies to answer an important question: Is postoperative radiotherapy deterring the spread of prostate cancer? In other words, how many patients would follow the same time-line with or without the postoperative radiotherapy?
In patients treated with adjuvant radiotherapy (adverse pathologic findings but an undetectable PSA), the results were that 78% were free of recurrence at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. In matched patients who did not receive adjuvant radiotherapy, 75% were recurrence free at 5 years and 50% at 10 years. Thus, there appears to be a distinct benefit for adjuvant radiotherapy with long-term follow-up. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controversies
A current controversy is taking place over whether all men with adverse pathologic findings after radical prostatectomy should automatically receive adjuvant radiotherapy if their PSA levels become undetectable after surgery ,or whether they should follow their PSA levels and receive radiotherapy only if the PSA begins to increase.
In women with breast cancer, for which there is no sensitive tumor marker such as PSA; adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy are routinely given if the surgery reveals adverse findings. Thus, all such women would be treated as though they would have cancer progression without further treatment.
However, with prostate cancer, the PSA test provides a sensitive marker for persistent cancer, and the results of treatment appear to be nearly as good if the radiotherapy is given when the PSA just begins to rise. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delaying therapy until the PSA rises can avoid unnecessary treatment in some patients; however, waiting until the PSA is higher than 2 ng/ ml can compromise results.
Another controversy exists about whether patients with very high-risk tumors should receive hormonal therapy in conjunction with postoperative radiotherapy, and, if so, for how long should it be continued.
Studies in patients treated primarily with radiotherapy (without surgery) have shown that patients with high risk tumors respond better if they receive hormonal therapy beginning before and continuing for two years after radiotherapy.
However, it is not known if prolonged hormonal therapy is needed with salvage radiotherapy. This distinction is important because many men would prefer to avoid prolonged hormonal therapy with its associated side effects of hot flashes, sexual dysfunction, and changes in body fat and muscle distribution. The answer to this controversy is unknown and these decisions must be made on an individual basis between the patient and his physician. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Place for Optimism
Relying on postoperative radiotherapy to deter the spread of cancer may have to be revisited. But, with new and more effective detection techniques, we might not have to worry about postoperative radiotherapy. Men will be treated soon enough so that a recurrence of the cancer is unlikely. And that world is the best of all possible worlds.
rosbif - 03 Mar 2007 08:22 GMT >Dear Rosbif, > >Happy to oblige. I happened to look up your numbers and got -- yet >another -- chuckle out of this: (11/21/06): "After 2 years of WW >I, . . . " At 100+ , it's no wonder you're having prostate problems. Teehee, people do say I look young for my age.
Thanks for posting this Leah, but cripes!, did you divine any useable strategy from this? There's a lot of info but none of it really seems to coalesce or point anywhere in particular.
e.g.
>The idea that negative surgical margins might be a factor in prostate >cancer progression is a paradoxical finding. Maybe this is just poorly expressed? I would hope -ve margins WERE a factor, in particular pointing to a better prognosis. If he means it's better to have +ve margins then he's got some explaining to do.
>The proposed explanation >is that patients with positive margins are more likely to have a tumor >recurrence within the bed of the prostate; whereas, those with >negative margins are more likely to have a distant recurrence. >However, I am not convinced of this explanation, and our data does not >confirm it. I'm not convinced either - paradoxical findings without a resolution is about as bad an assessment a study can possibly make of itself IMO.
>Among patients with none of these adverse features present, 77% with a >rising PSA after RRP remained free of cancer progression for 4 years. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of recurrence for 4 years if their Gleason grade was 7 or less and >their surgical margins were positive. This puts a bit of a strain on my understanding of recurrence. I thought rapid PSA doubling time was itself a marker?
>Also, patients with a Gleason score of 8 or higher had a progression >free survival of 81% if they were treated early, had a PSA doubling [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >metastases may respond well to radiotherapy, at least for a 4-year >period. But the 4 year result must be less conclusive than the longer study below...
>If Stephenson is correct, some patients with recurring prostate cancer >can be optimistic that postoperative radiotherapy might, at least, >postpone the spread of CaP.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >years and 50% at 10 years. Thus, there appears to be a distinct >benefit for adjuvant radiotherapy with long-term follow-up. ...which shows only a marginal improvement at 5 years (78 vs 75%) and not a lot to write home about at 10 years (64 vs 50%) given the burden of a double whammy of extra SEs bought on by the RT. Of course each of us would load these figures differently depending on priorities and perception of magnitude.
I'd be interested to know what others make of it all.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >the cancer is unlikely. And that world is the best of all possible >worlds. i.e. 'we're just not sure'
What do think Leah? Did this inform your strategy at all?
Steve Kramer - 21 Feb 2007 00:43 GMT > but wouldn't it be great to go on a cruise with PC > people only. It sounds like paradise. To be among your own! The only cruise I can imagine where a lot of the men go to that elevated sun deck to get a better view of the ocean.
> **A few weeks ago, the day my husband got the first result, I was > serving dinner that night and just felt unsteady and I was weaving > around like a drunk and bumping into walls. I've been driving since I was 14 years old (I was a mechanic at 13) and had one at-fault accident in 1987. On the date of my dx, I backed my truck into my wife's Toyota. All in all, I'd rather have been bumping into walls.
> He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what > people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed). Some do, some don't. My doc does every 8 months.
> Then J. got me aggravated: He said to me, "You look sick". Are you > stressed out about something? Maybe about your mother being here? So [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > never made the call. You'd think he'd care. And for the longest time > he said he "did not notice" his genitals "changing shape". Well. Give it a year or year and a half. That's about how long it took me.
> Finally, I went to the herring section, Should have had salmon.
> [OT - Gardening] Skip if you want. Okay.
callalily - 23 Feb 2007 23:01 GMT Dear Steve,
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The only cruise I can imagine where a lot of the men go to that elevated sun > deck to get a better view of the ocean. Well, you need to work on your imagination. Not to say that this boat isn't rocky, but it's not the "Voyage of the Damned" either. And sunlight is great for you folks!
I still like the idea of a cruise. Hughie can do the cooking, and IP can give aerobics classes. And we have loads of comedians here.
Last but not least, Leonard E. can figure out how much it'll all cost.
A doctor would come in handy . . .
Where should we go? Maybe to visit Maui Mike? We should all see Hawaii before we die (so that we've seen paradise, in case they don't let us in upstairs).
> > He did not do a DRE and I'm curious what > > people think about that (you know, to check the prostate bed).
> Some do, some don't. My doc does every 8 months. Well, this wasn't a routine visit. If there's a chance of recurrence, Dr. Callalily says you need to check the prostate bed. And if the doc's too lazy to do it, I'll do it on my own. There's a good diagram in the Strum book.
This is something that absolutely drives me
> > crazy about him: that at every stage of this journey he is in complete > > denial. I am really getting fed up with this behavior. Happy to say, this has improved a lot in the last week. J. is making calls to the docs and helping me assemble his records for visit to the rad onc.
> > Finally, I went to the herring section, > > Should have had salmon. It may be declasse, but when it comes to Omega-3's, herring is King! (See chart below from the Cleveland Clinic.) You can't eat salmon all day. Better yet, you can have salmon for dinner and do what my father did on occasion, put a slab of herring on a nice piece of pumpernickel bread and have it for breakfast. (By the way, IP, you said something about skipping the herring. Now they eat catfish in the South, don't they?)
Amount of Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Selected Fish and Seafood
Fish Serving Size Amount of Omega-3 Fat
Atlantic Salmon or Herring 3 ounces cooked 1.9 grams Blue Fin Tuna 3 ounces cooked 1.5 grams Sardines, canned 3 oz. in tomato sauce 1.5 grams Anchovies, canned 2 ounces drained 1.2 grams Atlantic Mackerel 3 ounces cooked 1.15 grams Salmon, canned 3 ounces drained 1.0 gram Swordfish 3 ounces cooked 0.9. gram Sea Bass (mixed species) 3 ounces cooked 0.65 gram Tuna, white meat canned 3 ounces drained 0.5 gram Sole, Flounder, Mussels 3 ounces cooked 0.4 gram Wild Catfish, crabmeat, clams 3 ounces cooked/steamed 0.3 gram Prawns (jumbo shrimp) 6 pieces 0.15 gram Atlantic Cod, Lobster 3 ounces cooked/steamed 0.15 gram Trout, Orange roughy 3 ounces cooked <0.1 g
Best to you all.
Leah
Steve Kramer - 23 Feb 2007 23:50 GMT Dear Steve,
> "callalily" <lfc...@aol.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sun > deck to get a better view of the ocean. Well, you need to work on your imagination. Not to say that this boat isn't rocky, but it's not the "Voyage of the Damned" either. And sunlight is great for you folks!
------- It was a joke about the topless sun bathing that normally goes on up there. Men usually "accidentally" end up on that deck for the view of what's on the deck. Those of us on ADT would go up for a better view of the ocean.
Steve Kramer - 23 Feb 2007 23:51 GMT > > Finally, I went to the herring section, > > Should have had salmon. Another joke. I guess I was off my game that night.
Hugh Kearnley - 24 Feb 2007 23:54 GMT I still like the idea of a cruise. Hughie can do the cooking,
HOY YOU! - If I'm going on a cruise - I'll wear the sunglasses and bermudas. Some other (UN)lucky arse can cook. TVM!
Bob C. - 21 Feb 2007 03:00 GMT > Hello everybody, > > **Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been > feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous. More like > terrified. He is going to the gym all day just to be
> away from me. But nothing terrifies me more than hormone
> therapy. > > Another change in my life that bothers me is that my whole life has > become "cancerized".
> [OT - Gardening] Skip if you want. Leah, whew, what a long post. I hope that all that typing helped you get some of it out of your system, but I doubt it. I would like to comment on just a few parts of it, just the above. My cancer is hormone refractory as of a few months ago, and I have been fighting this beast since December of 2000 but I am not done yet. From day one my wife and I both have tried to live by the philosophy that tomorrow is not going to ruin today. We occasionally fail at that. It will happen. You, however, are letting this thing ruin the good days that are here now. I occasionally take a break from even reading this newsgroup just to get fully away from it. If any miracle cure comes up, I think I'll hear about it. I keep one eye on different drugs and therapies in the works, but I won't obsess over finding every little scrap of news available. I take some supplements and eat lots of salmon and broccoli and drink lots of pom juice, and so on, but I will not waste too much time reading every opinion on every supplement and topic at the expense of my valuable time. I guess my life was also "cancerized" at one time, but not today. Well, not too often.
As for hormone therapy, I was on it for a year, off a year, on for two years, and now off for this past year. I am one of those who has not done well with the side effects. I will by choice, go back on it for whatever help it may provide, but along with Casodex this time. I am not going to advise anyone to go on hormone therapy or not to, but your research should tell you whether it's for you or not. I can live with the SE's. My choice. Maybe it's helping me to hang around longer, maybe it will hasten my demise. As you are only too aware, the cancer hits the spouse as well. Same with living with the SEs. I am not happy that my wife has to go through this, but I sure appreciate her help and support. Research, make joint decisions, and get on with your lives.
> Anyway, these are my happy memories. Make more. Take much needed breaks from the battle(s) you are fighting and make many more memories together. Get some patio tomatoes growing, some Rosemary planted in a flower pot to use fresh on your salmon, and work at having some fun and growing old together.
Don't let tomorrow ruin today, you do not know exactly what tomorrow may hold. Maybe all the stress will do you in first? Sometimes I have to pull my wife out of a funk, sometimes it's the other way around. No, it's not easy.
I do not pretend to have a lot of answers, heck, sometimes I don't even understand the questions! But I sure do not want to let some ugly beast ruin whatever days I may have left with fears of what the future may bring.
I am not going to compete with you for length of post, so please take this as kindly comments and not as criticism, but get your lives back and enjoy life again. Together. Best of luck to you both.
I.P. Freely - 21 Feb 2007 06:16 GMT >> Hello everybody, >> > **Also, Since we got the second PSA result last week I have been >> feeling down but also extremely frightened and nervous. More like >> terrified. > > He is going to the gym all day just to be away from me. I suggest you go to go to a gym, also. It's tough to beat a hard workout to blast many kinds of emotional issues out of one's head.
> But nothing terrifies me more than hormone therapy. There's no reason to fear ADT, for the simple reason that it can usually be discontinued successfully any time you decide it's worse than the alternative. Thus you then have at least two choices, which beats having only one. And both choices are now known choices, not a known one vs an unknown one. i.e., the only thing you have to lose *trying* ADT is the slight chance it may not be reversible, in which case you still gain its benefits. Win/Win, unless he experiences a *pair* of unlikely outcomes -- irreversibility and completely intolerable SEs -- which is *REALLY* unlikely.
I.P.
callalily - 25 Feb 2007 22:22 GMT Dear Bob,
> Leah, whew, what a long post. I hope that all that typing helped you get > some of it out of your system, but I doubt it. It did help me, and I am feeling much better, as I just wrote to Alan. And to you, I award the prize for Endurance, because I could tell you that read my post to the bitter end, and I do appreciate the sage advice.
>>From day one my wife and I both have tried to live by the philosophy that tomorrow >>is not going to ruin today. But suppose yesterday ruined your today? But it's your choice on whether to dwell on it.
>>We occasionally fail at that. It will happen. You, however, are letting this thing ruin >>the good days that are here now. Pardon me, but these are not the good days. (If they are, I hate to think about the bad days.) We have just had to swallow a hard diagnosis, which we honestly did not expect, but it does get better by the day. Especially when you've done something constructive like make a follow-up appt. with a doctor.
I hope the good days are just around the corner, but more likely, we are starting on the second leg of a difficult journey. But as someone said, "Every journey starts with a small step".
I guess what you can do is divert yourself, so I am reading lots of jokes and some other interesting stuff.
> I occasionally take a break from even reading this newsgroup just to get > fully away from it. How do you do it? My husband feels so neglected since I started "talking" online that he told me yesterday he was going to limit how much time I could spend on the computer!
>> If any miracle cure comes up, I think I'll hear about it. I keep one eye on different >>drugs and therapies in the works, but I won't obsess over finding every little scrap of news available. I agree with you, but I had to learn that the hard way. I have a heard time now not just reading what's "in the pipeline" but also anything at all about PC. I'm just saturated.
> I take some supplements and eat lots of salmon and broccoli and drink lots > of pom juice, and so on, but I will not waste too much time reading > every opinion on every supplement and topic at the expense of my > valuable time. You're right. That alone can make a person sick. Whether to soy or not. How much Vit. D to take??
I guess my life was also "cancerized" at one time, but
> not today. Well, not too often. It's like my husband says about life, "You write your own narrative".
>>As you know, cancer affects the spouse. Yes it does, and sometimes in worse ways. It's like I sometimes think, "He has a foreshortened view of his body, but I see everything from 360 degrees".
> > Anyway, these are my happy memories. > > Make more. Take much needed breaks from the battle(s) you are fighting > and make many more memories together. Get some patio tomatoes growing, It's winter out here. But the hyacinths are starting to come up. Yum. And the daffodils and tulips. Even here in the city, Park Ave. looks like a carpet of flowers in spring.
> work at having some fun and growing old together. Don't want to grow old at all. I am just so annoyed that I am having trouble reading up close. And you start to get sick, and all your friends start to get sick and die. (I am 47, btw.) I was amused because somebody wrote me today, "Growing old is not for the weak". I agreed with that, but I added, "Growing old is not for the old", or for that matter the middle-aged, either. It's not fun for anybody, unless you have your grandkids to diddle on your lap.
> Don't let tomorrow ruin today, you do not know exactly what tomorrow may > hold. Well, from reading this group I do know anything and everything about what the future may hold.:-)
>>Maybe all the stress will do you in first? That's what I'm trying not to let happen. But you know, they're always saying here, you're lucky if something else gets you before the PC.
> I do not pretend to have a lot of answers, heck, sometimes I don't even > understand the questions! But I sure do not want to let some ugly beast > ruin whatever days I may have left with fears of what the future may bring. You may have noticed that I have recently discussed the effects of calling the Pca "the Ugly Beast". I understand that its the instinctive thing to do. But I have been thinking and reading about how ca is demonized and personalized more than other diseases, and I believe it's true and that it affects the patient negatively. I was thinking that my father had a bad stroke (used to wish he'd had ca), and nobody called it a beast or had any "personal relationship" with. It was just something neutral to be overcome if possible. I don't think heart disease is taken personally either. I think good examples are arthritis and lupus, which some people have in severe form. But you don't hear people saying, "Of all things, my immune system, which is supposed to protect me from disease, is making me sick. Of all the rotten things to do! That double-crossing Arthritis Beast." I am just saying all this because maybe we can have more compassion for ourselves.
> I am not going to compete with you for length of post, so please take > this as kindly comments and not as criticism, I am a competitive person by nature and so I take some kind of perverse pleasure in having written such a long post -- maybe it set a record. (But I doubt it.)
>> but get your lives back > >and enjoy life again. Together. Best of luck to you both. We will try our darndest and thank you for good advice.
I wish you the best of health and happiness for many years to come. And if I hear about the "magic cure", you will be the first to know.
Oh, and give me your address. I would like to send you some cherry tomatoes.
Best,
Leah -
|
|
|