 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2007Can ADT "Cure" Early PCa?
An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can 'Cure' Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer" reports that the answer is "yes, maybe." It begins, "March 26, 2007 (Berlin) — An analysis of 5 prospective randomized trials presented here at the European Association of Urology 22nd Annual Congress shows that adjuvant androgen deprivation with early hormone therapy can provide a normal life expectancy and effectively cure a significant proportion of men with M0 prostate cancer." See: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554114?src=mp Regards, Steve J "There is NOWHERE in oncology where waiting for the tumor cell population to increase (and to mutate) is in the better interests of the patient." --Stephen B. Strum, MD > An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can > 'Cure' Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer" reports that the answer is "yes, > maybe." Interesting. Makes sense that if the cancer cells are in a less than "rich" environment that enough of them may die without reproducing. -kh, might be in my future. On Apr 6, 1:24 pm, Steve Jordan <mycrofts...@cox.net> wrote...snip... > An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can > 'Cure' Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer" reports that the answer is "yes, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/554114?src=mp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve...This would seem to be a very age-dependent statement...Best wishes and good health, ron Quoting me: >> An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can >> 'Cure' Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer" reports that the answer is "yes, >> maybe." (ka-snip) Ron replied: > Steve...This would seem to be a very age-dependent statement...Best > wishes and good health, ron I simply cited what someone else had written, FWIW, as a matter of possible interest to some of the gang. Heck, most of us are practicing geezers, anyway. Regards, Steve J "The devil has put a penalty on all things we enjoy in life. Either we suffer in health or we suffer in soul or we get fat." -- Albert Einstein > On Apr 6, 1:24 pm, Steve Jordan <mycrofts...@cox.net> wrote...snip... >> An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Steve...This would seem to be a very age-dependent statement...Best > wishes and good health, ron Also, there is the question of how early ADT compares to watchful waiting followed by late ADT for the same kinds of cases and the same ages. > Also, there is the question of how early ADT compares to watchful > waiting followed by late ADT for the same kinds of cases and the same ages. That question raises many more, such as the very definition of early vs late, since that's often relative to the cancer's status at its discovery or recurrence. i.e., if a case of PC is already fairly far along in grade, stage, and/or PSA when discovered and the pt pursues tx promptly, how does the body or the oncologist distinguish that from barely detectable PC followed by WW until the PC reaches that "fairly far along" example? IYOW, do we distinguish "early" from "late" by treatment delay time or by the grade/stage/PSA numbers? What's more important in applying this study's guidelines . . . pre-treatment numbers or post-treatment numbers? And do we take this study at face value and erase or reverse half of what we've said here in the past decade, or do we wait until more shoes drop, given the number of times we've been jerked around by conflicting studies? Does everyone with solid initial treatment results rush out and submit to ADT with the expectation of significant cure odds, or keep on believing all the other studies, tweak our paradigm by a decimal point, and observantly await further data? Or do we take an infinitely simpler and maybe even more cancer-curative step with virtually no SEs: stop eating any form of animal proteins, including dairy and fish? More on that after I've finished reading Campbell's "The China Study", the layman's book on the most robust nutrition study ever performed? In just its first chapter it appears to claim, and will prove, that chewing/eschewing animal proteins determine the incidence/regression of cancer clearly and definitively more than all other nutrients and supplements combined. Was today's prime rib my last? Tune in after I finish the book. But I tell ya . . . I'd infinitely prefer giving up meat and cow's milk to accepting ADT, especially if the former has a far greater chance of insuring that I never have to talk to an oncologist again. I.P. Did I miss something or did these results vary from region to region or not. Like diddn't the american study show no significant difference? And isn't the american diet the gold standard, I mean the animal fat standard for what not to eat? My gut, as much as it wants to discount the evidence for want of BBQed ribs and Ben and Jerry's chocolate malts, sure points to Veganism as my new religion. WSF > ... > Or do we take an infinitely simpler and maybe even more cancer-curative step with > virtually no SEs: stop eating any form of animal proteins, including dairy and fish? ... I.P. My understanding of the biology of nutrition is limited, but I was under the impression that _all_ proteins are broken down very quickly in the stomach and upper intestine into their constituent amino acids. Amino acids may then either be used directly by the body to build up protein of its own, or may be metabolized to produce energy and waste nitrogen and CO2. In other words, the body really doesn't see proteins as such. Once digestion takes place, all it sees are amino acids. Whether these come from cows or sow beans is immaterial. Does the book you're reading address that issue? If I'm right, then if eating meat causes cancer, it wouldn't be the proteins but something else in the meat that's doing it. Perhaps, for example, hormones fed to cows and chickens to bulk them up. Alan > ... sow beans ... Or soy beans. I'd blame my typing, but I think it's my thinking that is erratic. Alan >If I'm right, then if eating meat causes cancer, it wouldn't >be the proteins but something else in the meat that's >doing it. Perhaps, for example, hormones fed to cows >and chickens to bulk them up. Also antibiotics in animal-feed and cannibalism (google "UK BSE mad cow") spring to mind immediately - although I'll find it hard to give up a decent rib-eye without conclusive proof it will kill me tomorrow. It seems to me that we're being poisoned in so many ways, by so many means to optimise food production, that to reliably quantify overall risk to health is a lost cause. Stick to a 'healthy' diet of course. >> ... >> Or do we take an infinitely simpler and maybe even more cancer-curative step with >> virtually no SEs: stop eating any form of animal proteins, including dairy and fish? > My understanding of the biology of nutrition is limited, but > I was under the impression that _all_ proteins are broken [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or may be metabolized to produce energy and waste > nitrogen and CO2. And, of course, fill fat cells. Carbs provide energy, proteins build tissue, protein not used to repair cells within hours is stored as fat, and a pot belly even on otherwise thin people is dangerous. > In other words, the body really doesn't see proteins as > such. Once digestion takes place, all it sees are amino > acids. Whether these come from cows or sow beans is > immaterial. > > Does the book you're reading address that issue? Dunno yet; got a few hundred pages to go, plus following Matti's links about the author in s.m.d.c.. > If I'm right, then if eating meat causes cancer, it wouldn't > be the proteins but something else in the meat that's > doing it. Perhaps, for example, hormones fed to cows > and chickens to bulk them up. In remote China, decades ago? So much to read, so little time. I.P. Steve, I do not care to register, can you append the article or parts of the article. Thanks, Gourd Dancer > An April 6 Medscape article entitled, "Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can > 'Cure' Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer" reports that the answer is "yes, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > patient." > --Stephen B. Strum, MD > Steve, I do not care to register, can you append the article or parts of the > article. Thanks, > > Gourd Dancer Can't imagine why. It's not something that will gain one spam, as I can testify from personal experience. But: Different strokes...... Here's the best I can do: "Across the full 5 studies analyzed, the proportion of patients with a normal life expectancy due to the adjuvant androgen deprivation ranged from more than 17% (after 9 years, RTOG 86-10), to more than 25% (after 12 years, RTOG 85-31), more than 35% (after 8 years, EORTC 22863; after 10 years, ECOG 7887), and more than 45% (after 11 years, Granfors)." Regards, Steve J “Prostate cancer is often described as a curable disease made incurable by late diagnosis." --David Wright, Advanced PCa patient East Comiston, Scotland Thanks. >> Steve, I do not care to register, can you append the article or parts of >> the article. Thanks, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > --David Wright, Advanced PCa patient > East Comiston, Scotland > I do not care to register, can you append the article or parts of the > article. Thanks, Adjuvant Androgen Deprivation Can "Cure" Nonmetastasized Prostate Cancer Chris Berrie, MA, MPhil, PhD March 26, 2007 (Berlin) — An analysis of 5 prospective randomized trials presented here at the European Association of Urology 22nd Annual Congress shows that adjuvant androgen deprivation with early hormone therapy can provide a normal life expectancy and effectively cure a significant proportion of men with M0 prostate cancer. Thomas Ebert, MD, PhD, head of the Department of Urology, EuromedClinic, Fuerth, Germany, initially indicated during his presentation that based on historical data from before the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, hormone therapy was believed to be a mainly palliative treatment for advanced prostate cancer. "We know now that adjuvant androgen deprivation following radiation therapy in M0 patients prolongs survival compared with radiation therapy alone," he added. However, Dr. Ebert and colleagues asked whether this early hormone therapy can actually normalize the life expectancy of the patient with nonmetastasized prostate cancer, as with the local interventions of radical prostatectomy and external radiation therapy (EBRT). This analysis used a Medline search to include all published peer-reviewed prospective randomized trials from the past 10 years of the effects of adjuvant castration therapy after local therapy compared with local therapy alone, with median follow-up of more than 5 years. The overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were compared with those of age-, time-, and country-matched men without prostate cancer from the Human Mortality Database. Five studies satisfied these inclusion criteria. Differences in OS could be calculated for 3 of these studies, as a comparison with the calculated normal life expectancies: the addition of adjuvant androgen deprivation to EBRT provided an OS that was not significantly different from the normal life expectancies of 70-year-old Belgium men (EORTC 22863) and 69-year-old Swedish men (Granfors), with many, but not all, 70-year-old US men (RTOG 85-31) showing a similar benefit. Across the full 5 studies analyzed, the proportion of patients with a normal life expectancy due to the adjuvant androgen deprivation ranged from more than 17% (after 9 years, RTOG 86-10), to more than 25% (after 12 years, RTOG 85-31), more than 35% (after 8 years, EORTC 22863; after 10 years, ECOG 7887), and more than 45% (after 11 years, Granfors). In the single study of adjuvant androgen therapy after radical prostatectomy, 66-year-old US males (ECOG 7887) also showed no significant differences from the equivalent normal population (PFS was the measure of life expectancy without tumor recurrence). Thus, while it is accepted that adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients with M0 prostate cancer leads to a survival advantage compared with local treatment alone, Dr Ebert stressed that, "This may lead to a normal life expectancy for most of these patients as compared to standard age- and country-matched men." Furthermore, a normal life expectancy without tumor progression is seen in a significant proportion of these patients, which, Dr. Ebert and colleagues suggest, effectively constitutes a cure for nonmetastasized prostate cancer. This study did not receive commercial support. Drs. Ebert, Weissbach, and Schmitz-Draeger have served on the speakers' bureaus for AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda. EAU 22nd Annual Congress: Abstract 20. Presented March 21, 2007. > Thus, while it is accepted that adjuvant androgen deprivation in patients > with M0 prostate cancer leads to a survival advantage compared with local [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > significant proportion of these patients, which, Dr. Ebert and colleagues > suggest, effectively constitutes a cure for nonmetastasized prostate cancer. Damn. Now they tell us. ;-) This reverses the early adjuvant ADT literature consensus of just months ago, let alone a couple of years ago. Oh, well . . . we knew going in that new findings are always imminent, and can't justify worrying about it. I didn't expect *this* level of reversal, particularly since this applies even more for more aggressive PC cases, unlike many studies. Guess I'll have to ask my onc about this finding at our visit in a few weeks. But considering the physical condition a winter in the gym has put me in, confirmed by performance testing, he'd have a hell of a time persuading me to throw all that away over an immeasurable PSA. I.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.