Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2007
newbie question about IGRT fiducial markers
|
|
Thread rating:  |
old.man.moze@gmail.com - 24 Oct 2007 17:00 GMT Hi everyone, this is my first post here after lurking the last couple of weeks.
I have a family history of PC -- my Dad died of it in his 70s. I've been having yearly PSAs done for the last 10 years (I just turned 59) and they have always been in the normal range. The last, about a month ago was 2.6.
Two weeks ago, however, I had a sudden onset of what turned out to be epididymitis. I went to a urologist that I had never seen before and he gave me antibiotics and told me to rest and apply ice packs. It worked and I was fine by the end of the next day. While I was in his office, though, he did a PCA3 test because of my family history of PC. A week later it came back positive and he did a prostate biopsy. It showed PCA in one of the eight samples. The Gleason score was 3+4. My prostate is not enlarged (based on the ultrasound done during the biopsy, the urologist estimated 26 grams). A CAT and bone scan were normal.
Initially, this urologist, and the radiation oncologist he sent me to recommended seed brachytherapy, possibly with additional external beam radiation.
I wanted to get a second opinion, so I talked with a different urologist and radiation guy that are affiliated with a fairly large cancer center in the city where I live. They recommend that I undergo a 2-month (48 treatment) session of IGRT instead of the seed implant.
Everyone I've talked to has said that there probably won't be a lot of difference is whichever route I take, IGRT or seeds. They do the Da Vinci procedure here and presented that as an option also, but I don't want to do the surgical route. I'm most comfortable with the numbers that I've seen related to the IGRT, so that's the way I'm planning to go. I realize that this options game is pretty much a crap shoot, so I feel best going with the option that involves the least number of holes punched in me, and the smallest ones.
Which brings me to my question about the fiducial marker implants. I'm scheduled to have this done on this coming Friday. What should I expect?
Unfortunately, I've seen the needles they are going to use -- my radiation guy gave them to me to take to the urologist (they're across town from each other). I know they are going to shoot some Lidocaine in before they insert these things, but still, they've got to go all the way to the prostate by way of the perineum, ouch!
I worked for years as a medical lab tech and have drawn blood from thousands of people, assisted at bone marrows, and all kinds of stuff, but being on the receiving end of this gives me the willies, big time. I guess I'm a wuss, but I'm really dreading having this done.
Thanks in advance...
Steve Kramer - 25 Oct 2007 22:10 GMT > I have a family history of PC -- my Dad died of it in his 70s. I've > been having yearly PSAs done for the last 10 years (I just turned 59) > and they have always been in the normal range. The last, about a > month ago was 2.6.
> A week later it came back positive and he did a prostate biopsy. > It showed PCA in one of the eight samples. The Gleason score was > 3+4. You have a very good doctor. Based on what you gave us, there was very little reason to suspect cancer. My compliments to your doc.
> I worked for years as a medical lab tech and have drawn blood from > thousands of people, assisted at bone marrows, and all kinds of stuff, > but being on the receiving end of this gives me the willies, big > time. I guess I'm a wuss, but I'm really dreading having this done. I've always dreaded needles. Now? With all those that have been stuck in me, I don't give them a second thought.
I think it is a huge mistake to use mechanics as a criteria in making your decision as to your quality and quantity of life.
I'm surprised neither uro recommended surgery. Do you have a prior medical hisotry?
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
old.man.moze@gmail.com - 25 Oct 2007 23:53 GMT > You have a very good doctor. Based on what you gave us, there was very > little reason to suspect cancer. My compliments to your doc. Yes, I realize that finding this now was lucky because it appears that my cancer is in a very early stage. I have to admit though, that it didn't seem like my lucky day at the time. Ironically, the day I got the call about the positive PCA3 was my 59th birthday.
> I've always dreaded needles. Now? With all those that have been stuck in > me, I don't give them a second thought. I don't really mind being on the receiving end of most (minor) medical procedures. Having the biopsy done was no fun, but I handled it pretty well. I'm just dreading this marker implantation, I guess it's the idea of being stuck in the nether region and the needle going all the way up into the prostate (3 times) -- kind of creeps me out. I contacted the urologist that will be doing the procedure tomorrow and he offered to let me have it done with a Valium IV, so I'm less worried now.
I was talking about this with a nurse friend who works in the local cancer clinic, and she said 'you men are such babies'. I don't know about everyone, but I am, definitely, a wussie when it comes to pain.
> I think it is a huge mistake to use mechanics as a criteria in making your > decision as to your quality and quantity of life. > > I'm surprised neither uro recommended surgery. Do you have a prior medical > hisotry? I was being a little facetious about my criteria -- guess I should have put a smiley in there :) Actually both of the urologists that I have seen discussed surgery as an option, the DaVinci procedure specifically. However, they both thought that given my particulars, I would have at least as good a prognosis with radiation as with surgery. Based on what I've been able to read on the Net and my discussions with them, I think that treatment with IGRT is the best choice for me, considering probable outcomes and side effects.
I asked both of the urologists and both of the radiation guys that I've talked to, 'What would you do, if you were me?' Their answers were 1. DaVinci, 2. seed implants, 3 & 4. IGRT external beam. Most of them qualified their choices by saying that in my case, no one option really stood out as best, and that my probability of success would not be significantly different no matter which treatment modality I chose.
My prior history is pretty uneventful -- no prostate problems at least. I do have mild osteoporosis, for which I take weekly Fosamax and Calcium and mild hypertension which is also under control with meds. I need to lose some weight and start getting more exercise, but overall, I'm not in too bad shape for 59.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. I was really glad to find this newsgroup -- I can't say I'm overjoyed at joining this club, but it is good to see that there are so many intelligent, caring members here already.
Moze
Alan Meyer - 26 Oct 2007 01:12 GMT On Oct 25, 6:53 pm, old.man.m...@gmail.com wrote:
> I asked both of the urologists and both of the radiation guys that > I've talked to, 'What would you do, if you were me?' Their answers > were 1. DaVinci, 2. seed implants, 3 & 4. IGRT external beam. It's interesting that they rated seed implants ahead of IGRT. I suspect they did that because it's a one day job instead of the 48 treatments plus a treatment to insert the radiation targets. With your low PSA, as the docs said, all the treatment modalities usually have good results (though see below for a comment about your Gleason score.)
Interestingly, you may find the needle sticks for the marker implants a bit more stressful than you would have found brachytherapy. For the brachytherapy they'd likely knock you completely out - at least they did for me. But none of it will really be that bad. A few shots in the perineum rates below zero on a scale with prostate cancer at the top.
However, in the final analysis, as you say, the "numbers" for IGRT are a little better than for brachytherapy if the cancer is more serious than expected. The Gleason 7, in theory, takes you into the "intermediate risk" range instead of the "low risk" range that your low PSA would indicate.
Best of luck with it.
Alan
old.man.moze@gmail.com - 26 Oct 2007 02:41 GMT > It's interesting that they rated seed implants ahead of IGRT. I wasn't clear here -- this wasn't how they ranked my options. What I meant was the first guy that I talked with said he'd have the DaVinci, the second guy said he'd have brachytherapy, and the third and fourth guys said they'd go with IGRT external beam. This was in response to my 'what would YOU do, IF YOU WERE ME?' question.
> suspect they did that because it's a one day job instead of the 48 > treatments plus a treatment to insert the radiation targets. Brachytherapy vs IGRT was one of the main things I debated over. One procedure vs 48 is certainly a plus for brachytherapy, but for me, the (relatively) less-invasive nature of IGRT is a big plus over the seed implants. That wasn't the only consideration, of course. The physicians that I talked to played a big part in my decision. From all accounts, both are competent, but I felt much more comfortable with one compared to the other. I don't want to get into details, but in talking with one guy, some of the things he said (which actually were not even related to my care at all) set off some 'gut feeling' alarms that made me wary of him. It could have been nothing, but I believe in listening to intuition, assuming that everything else is equal in a given situation.
I'll only have to drive across town (15-20 minutes) to get to the center for the radiation treatments and will be able to work it in with my work schedule without any problem, which also influenced my decision. I might have felt differently if I lived many miles from a treatment center.
> none of it will really be that bad. > A few shots in the perineum rates below zero on a scale with > prostate cancer at the top. Absolutely! Thanks, I know I have to keep things in perspective. At any rate, this time tomorrow the marker insertion will be a done deal.
Moze
Steve Kramer - 26 Oct 2007 03:01 GMT > However, they both thought that given my particulars, I > would have at least as good a prognosis with radiation as with > surgery. Based on what I've been able to read on the Net and my > discussions with them, I think that treatment with IGRT is the best > choice for me, considering probable outcomes and side effects. Actually, surgery nudges out radiation for the lead, but I don't believe the difference is significant enough to select surgery if radiation is best for your considering side effects. Just wanted to make sure you knew it was available.
> Anyway, thanks for the reply. I was really glad to find this > newsgroup -- I can't say I'm overjoyed at joining this club, Alas, not one of us was......
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
MAS - 27 Oct 2007 00:57 GMT 5 1/2 years ago, although asymptomatic, my Gleason was 4+3 - PSA 6.2. Biopsy hurt like hell.\
I went the seeds route and chased it with XMRT (kinda like IMRT) on the new Peacock system. Both Radiation Oncologists felt it was the way to go. A year later PSA exploded. My Medical Oncologist (has specialized in PCa research for 28 years) told me that it is not matter which primary treatment I had, it was too late.
BTW, Brachy was a snap, never felt a thing. Only side effect was bloody semen and swollen prostate that clamped doen on the urether. However, warm sitz baths let me pee....... so no need to catherize.
I fell into the 7% grouping for non success.
Immediately went on a chemo trail for six months. I am still undetectible with both mets totally disappearing and replaced bt new bone growth in the spine.
I am now 60 years of age.
At the time I made my decision there was no Da Vinci. Still I believe that I would undertake the same treatment plan. I have no regrets. I could just see me with RP and still taking chemo. It happens all the time.
I guess the best question to ask yourself is, " Can I live with cancer in my body?" Whether it is RP or Rad, I believe that you will have like percentages of many years of undectibles. Listen to your doctors, ask teh questions, but in the end it is your decision. No one can make it for you...
I wish you many years of undectibles.
Gourd Dancer
> Hi everyone, this is my first post here after lurking the last couple > of weeks. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Thanks in advance... old.man.moze@gmail.com - 27 Oct 2007 05:25 GMT > I guess the best question to ask yourself is, " Can I live with cancer in my > body?" Whether it is RP or Rad, I believe that you will have like > percentages of many years of undectibles. Listen to your doctors, ask teh > questions, but in the end it is your decision. No one can make it for you... > > I wish you many years of undectibles. Thanks for the kind words.
I had the markers implanted this morning. It turned out to be no big deal after all. The insertion was done through the rectum, the same as was done during my biopsy. Somewhere along the way, I came to believe that the marker needles went in through the perineum, like implanting brachytherapy seeds, but that was incorrect. I probably misunderstood what I was told, or whoever told me that misunderstood what I was asking.
They gave me IV Valium, which effectively took the edge off the whole business. I was awake and knew what was happening but the actual plugging in of the markers was no worse that the usual venipuncture. It was over in just a few moments. All in all, the anticipation was the worst thing.
Next thing is the planning session and fitting of the body mold, scheduled for Monday. After that the rad treatments start. Hopefully, I'll be able to wrap up the treatments around the first week of the new year. Then, I guess it's a matter of keeping an eye on my PSA and hoping for the best.
Moze
Steve Kramer - 27 Oct 2007 16:12 GMT > Hopefully, I'll be able to wrap up the treatments around the first > week of the new year. Then, I guess it's a matter of keeping an eye > on my PSA and hoping for the best. > > Moze Better than that, get your quarterly (then semiannually and then annually) PSAs and just get on with your life. It would be a shame to beat cancer and let it continue to affect your life.
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
Steve Jordan - 27 Oct 2007 19:45 GMT On October 24, moze wrote:
(snip history)
> Which brings me to my question about the fiducial marker implants. > I'm scheduled to have this done on this coming Friday. What should I > expect? I understand that the intended treatment is "IGRT," which is "image-guided radiation therapy." Image-guided. It's also known as "tomotherapy."
I know a rad onc who uses this procedure extensively. Judging from what he as said, along with all that I have read about the procedure, fiducial markers are not used. What is used is a CT scan every session. Thus the term, " image-guided". I wonder whether what's to be done is actually CyberKnife™, which, if my wetware is correct, does use fiducial markers.
If someone can help clear up this minor confusion, I'd appreciate it.
Regards,
Steve J
PS: Glad to see that the implantation was not as uncomfortable as anticipated.
old.man.moze@gmail.com - 28 Oct 2007 04:24 GMT > I understand that the intended treatment is "IGRT," which is > "image-guided radiation therapy." Image-guided. It's also known as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > If someone can help clear up this minor confusion, I'd appreciate it. It was described to me as image-guided radiation therapy, or IGRT for short. I was told that on my first session a body cast would be made that would hold my body in the same position for each treatment. Yes, a CT scan is done each session. The fiducial markers are used to precisely locate the position of the prostate in 3-D for each scan to allow for daily movement. I was told that the prostate can normally move around quite a bit on a day-to-day basis because of intestinal gas. The term 'cyberknife' has not been used.
I go for the 1st session this coming Monday, so I should know more after it's over.
Moze
Steve Jordan - 28 Oct 2007 20:55 GMT On October 28, Moze replied to me:
> It was described to me as image-guided radiation therapy, or IGRT for > short. I was told that on my first session a body cast would be made > that would hold my body in the same position for each treatment. Yes, > a CT scan is done each session. The fiducial markers are used to > precisely locate the position of the prostate in 3-D for each scan to > allow for daily movement. That's what the CT scan is intended to do.
But maybe the markers are a new wrinkle.
The cast is standard.
Hope it works out.
Please advise whether the gantry moves 360º around the table.
Regards,
Steve J
cmdrdata - 28 Oct 2007 23:21 GMT > On October 28, Moze replied to me: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > precisely locate the position of the prostate in 3-D for each scan to > > allow for daily movement.
> Please advise whether the gantry moves 360? around the table. When I had my SBRT, I too had 3 fiducials planted. It was less painful than the biopsy and the tool goes in through the rectal wall into the prostate. The RT procedure itself is painless. I have a custom body mold made, then a week after the marker, they took a CT scan for RT planning purposes (3D beam pattern planning with a very thin catheter inserted into the urethra filled with scan contrast material, so they know where the urethra is with respect to the fiducials.). During treatment sessions another week later no cathether, but balloon thingy was inserted into the rectum for each treatment to stabilize the prostate against the pubic bone, then a cone beam scan (360 degree) is taken with the machine (Elekta Synergy S that also provide the zapping rays) to account for any slight displacement from previous location. Then the gantry moved again in about x degree steps to zap the prostate according to the plan, adjusted by the cone beam's offset data.
old.man.moze@gmail.com - 31 Oct 2007 16:04 GMT > When I had my SBRT, I too had 3 fiducials planted. It was less painful > than [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > to zap the prostate according to the plan, adjusted by the cone beam's > offset data. Your experience sounds very similar to mine. I went in Monday morning and had a CT scan and the body mold made. Actually, the term 'body mold' is misleading -- only the lower half of my legs (from the soles of my feet up to my crotch) fit into the mold. They did insert the balloon thingy into the rectum, but no urethral catheter (no complaints about that). They also made drew three red ink 'X' marks on my lower body, one in the center and one on each side. These were covered with a small piece of clear plastic tape. They told me not to wash these off when I bathed.
I had the 1st treatment this morning at the cancer center. The machine is a Varian Clinac linear accelerator (I forget the model number). The gantry has a large round component that starts out above you and a rectangular one below. I'm guessing that the round component is the radiation emitter and the rectangular one a scanner. I didn't want to bug the techs with a lot of questions, but I'll ask the doc for details when I see him next week.
The procedure is simple -- the tech had me lie down on the machine's table and inserted the rectal balloon, then placed my legs into the body mold. The gantry swung around so that the rectangular unit that was initially underneath me moved around my sides. Then the techs came in and adjusted my position on the table and altered the position of the ink marks a little bit. I'm guessing that this part of the procedure was scanning the fiducial markers and getting everything lined up. Then the round unit swung a little below horizontal on my left side and did the first zap. Then the unit moved a few degrees and zapped again. The process repeated until the emitter was below horizontal on my right. I didn't think to count, but I'm guessing that there were 8 - 10 positions in all. The was no sensation at all, the only clue I had that anything was going on is that a light came on the emitter unit and there was a beeping sound (which ironically sounded just like the one on my microwave). The whole procedure took about 15 minutes.
There were two techs that worked with me during the procedure. Both were ladies and they were each wearing halloween costumes (a fairy with wings and tinfoil wig, and a blow-up bird kind of thing), which made for a somewhat festive, and more that slightly surreal experience.
One down, 43 to go...
Moze
|
|
|