Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Decision Time?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bob - 06 Oct 2007 14:42 GMT
Have been on Lupron/Casodex for eighteen months since failure of external
beam radiation. doubling time was nine months. original diagnosis was
gleason 3+3, 10% involvement.
My onc is talking about going on "Intermittent" treatment. PSA has been <
0.1 since ADT. She claims that," recent studies have shown that intermittent
androgen deprivation therapy may actually be equivalent to continuous ADT,
although this remains investigational."
Going off ADT really scares me, on the other hand, I am tired of being
tired, hot flashes, emotional, etc.
Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be appreciated.
alva36@gmail.com - 06 Oct 2007 16:00 GMT
> Going off ADT really scares me, on the other hand, I am tired of being
> tired, hot flashes, emotional, etc.
> Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be appreciated.

Of course go off the meds.  Both my medical oncologists believe in
intermittent ADT.  Just have regular PSA checks, and if it goes up
(and we all certainly hope not), go back on the meds.

-Gordy
RalphV - 06 Oct 2007 16:08 GMT
Hi Bob,
Several studies support the use of intermittent ADT versus continuous
because of similar survival results with better quality of life. Read
about a recent one:
http://tinyurl.com/3e3dyv

Wish you the very best outcome,

RalphV
www.pcainaz.org/phpbb

> Have been on Lupron/Casodex for eighteen months since failure of external
> beam radiation. doubling time was nine months. original diagnosis was
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> tired, hot flashes, emotional, etc.
> Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be appreciated.
BH - 06 Oct 2007 16:49 GMT
For what it may be worth, Bob, I recently stopped taking Casodex after
nine months because I was not willing to accept the side effects.  I
was taking Casodex, alone.  The first PSA test after going off Casodex
indicates my PSA is rising.  Another PSA is scheduled for later this
month.  Based on the results of that test, I may try some intermittent
schedule.  Whether intermittent is as effective as constant treatment
isn't the deciding factor for me.  I just won't trade off that much
quality of life to make my life possibly longer.

It's yet another difficult choice some of us get to make in deciding
how to treat PCa.  I have to keep reminding myself that having a
choice is better than not having a choice at all.

Best wishes,

Burney

>Have been on Lupron/Casodex for eighteen months since failure of external
>beam radiation. doubling time was nine months. original diagnosis was
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>tired, hot flashes, emotional, etc.
>Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be appreciated.

Burney dot Huff at Mindspring dot com
Heather - 06 Oct 2007 18:37 GMT
Bob, my husband (Ron) was on Zoladex and Casodex for 15 months and the
side effects were totally draining.  He could hardly walk 50 feet.  The
medical oncologist in this City said "you know he can NEVER come off the
HT, don't you"??  After a futile argument, I fired him.

Went back to Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto and Dr. Loblaw immediately
took him off all meds.  His PSA had been 0.02 for over a year.  It took
about 7 months (after the last Zoladex shot wore off) to get his
muscular strength back....most of it anyway.

He feels absolutely GREAT and while his PSA is creeping up from 0.02, it
is still low.  In August (18 months after stopping HT), it was 0.19.
Dr. L. says that is where it would normally be after any sort of
radiation, but if it gets up over 4, he will put him back on HT

I was a bit upset at the 0.19 until my daughter and my two best buds on
here put it into perspective.  I just had to get on top of it and look
at it from the positive side.  And I swore I would never worry.....HAH!!
It goes with the territory as my mother would have said!!

HTH, and by all means go off the HT and just keep an eye on your PSA.
We get it checked every 6 months.

All the best......Ron and Heather

> Have been on Lupron/Casodex for eighteen months since failure of
> external beam radiation. doubling time was nine months. original
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be
> appreciated.
Steve Jordan - 06 Oct 2007 19:40 GMT
(snip)

> My onc is talking about going on "Intermittent" treatment. PSA has been
> < 0.1 since ADT. She claims that," recent studies have shown that
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> tired, hot flashes, emotional, etc.
> Any thoughts on this decision from the great group, would be appreciated.

Here is a thorough review of intermittent ADT:

http://www.prostate-cancer.org/education/andeprv/Strum_IADT.html

Please note that, according to this standard, it would be imprudent to
suspend ADT unless monthly test results are no more than <0.05 ng/mL for
at least one year. This requires "ultrasensitive" tests. Results of
"<0.1" are equivocal at best.

During the "off" period, which can be years, it is necessary to watch
PSA closely so as to detect any rises. Again, using the ultrasensitive
protocol. If PSA rises to an unacceptable level, ADT can be restarted.
What is acceptable is a matter of individual choice; there is no set
standard.

Regards,

Steve J

"We must tailor the treatment to the nature of the disease. We must
listen to the biology."
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD
Bert - 08 Oct 2007 22:05 GMT
> Please note that, according to this standard, it would be imprudent to
> suspend ADT unless monthly test results are no more than <0.05 ng/mL for
> at least one year. This requires "ultrasensitive" tests. Results of "<0.1"
> are equivocal at best.

One has to be a little careful in making decisions based on fluctuations of
very low PSA tests (made possible by the ultra sensitive psa tests). These
fluctuations are notoriously inaccurate at the low end.
Steve Jordan - 08 Oct 2007 23:38 GMT
Quoting me

>> Please note that, according to this standard, it would be imprudent
>>  to suspend ADT unless monthly test results are no more than <0.05
>> ng/mL for at least one year. This requires "ultrasensitive" tests.
>> Results of "<0.1" are equivocal at best.

He replied

> One has to be a little careful in making decisions based on
> fluctuations of very low PSA tests (made possible by the ultra
> sensitive psa tests). These fluctuations are notoriously inaccurate
> at the low end.

"Notoriously?"  Evidence, please.

And if such be the case, then it is of even greater importance to make
judgments based upon a series of U/S tests, not just one or two.

Regards,

Steve J

"What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget 'what the
stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think,
never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the
facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an
unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"
--Lazarus Long
Bert - 10 Oct 2007 16:36 GMT
> "Notoriously?"  Evidence, please.

This was based my personal experience and a discussion I had with the
oncologist who is treating me.

A few months ago there were some changes in my psa doubling patterns.  I am
being treated with IHT (Lupron plus casodex) -- one year on treatment and
about 18 to 24 months off (depending on psa).

I have been in the off treatment cycle since March '06.
My psa started to increase earlier than usual due to the fact that the
local hospital switched to a more sensitive test (from one with a .1
sensitivitity to one with a .03 sensitivity).

I expected an earlier biochemical relapse so this wasn't a
surprise. But after a second test three months later, I also noticed that
the psa doubling rate was twice as high than  in previous relapses.   When I
brought this to the attention to the oncologist, he
indicated that doubling calculations based on psa levels this low were
"notoriously innacurate".

> And if such be the case, then it is of even greater importance to make
> judgments based upon a series of U/S tests, not just one or two.

Yes, I would agree...

Basically, I question the use of ultra low psa results to make treatment
decisions (even if accurate at very low levels).

Bert
Diagnosed 10/98 - psa 21, gleason 8.  Treatment:s: Chemo, RRP, Radiation,
IHT
 
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.