Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2007
psa rising
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Bruce - 27 Oct 2007 17:41 GMT I am 69 years old now and in 1999 I was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. My psa was in the high teens. A biopsy confirmed the diagnosis, and the Gleason was 8. I don't recall the other numbers, but I think I was T1c. I had an RP in 2000. The psa never did drop to near zero. In 2002 I had beam radiation, 30 doses over about 6 weeks, due to increasing psa levels. During the next few months there was an abrupt psa rise to nearly 2.0. This gradually subsided so that a year later my psa seemed stable around 0.31 - 0.35. As a result of the radiation I have continued to be affected by radiation proctitus. This is an on-going situation that I have gradualy learned to live with. I am fortunate that I have no problem with incontinence, however from the time of the RP my I have been unable to have an erection. Not an easy situation to accept or live with, but we accept what we must. The following is a brief history of my psa levels: In August 2003 my psa was 0.31; January 2004, 0.34; July 2004, 0.57;August 2005, 0.51; September 2005, 0.7; April 2006, 0.73; July 2006, 0.91; October 2006, 1.15; April 2007, 1.47; October 2007, 2.16. I haven't graphed these numbers but it is easy to see that an exponential curve has developed. I suspect that my next appointment with my oncologist in April 2008 will show a more dramatic increase. The doctor has decided to hold off on chemical treatment (Casodex, or whatever?) until next visit because of "unpleasant side effects". I agreed with him but I don't feel very good about it because I believe that the Pca is growing somewhere in my body. If someone would care to comment, negatively or positively, about this little story I would be grateful. Thank you! Bruce
Alan Meyer - 27 Oct 2007 19:26 GMT Hello Bruce,
I'm sorry about your rising PSA.
I'm not a doctor. My opinions are purely those of a layman who has, himself, been treated for cancer. So I'm not qualified to give any expert advice.
Now having said that, here's my inexpert advice:
If you aren't already doing it, I would start by taking those nutritional supplements that are thought to have a positive impact on cancer. See the recent thread here on pomegranate "Another report on benefits of pomegranates" and look for other info about supplements.
Who knows if they really work, and who knows which ones work, or how much to take (there is a discussion of that vis a vis pomegranate in the above thread.) But if they don't hurt and don't cost an arm and a leg, maybe they can help slow things down for you.
Secondly, I would try hard to find a medical oncologist who specializes in prostate cancer. It would be a rare urologist or radiation oncologist who really understands this stuff. It's not their specialty and most of them know no more than, Give the guy some Casodex pills, then give him a shot of Lupron. When the Lupron stops working, kiss him goodbye.
A qualified med onc can do much more than that. Specifically, they can try double or triple ADT if they think it's warranted, intermittent ADT if they think that's warranted, provide recommendations on supplements, take blood tests that may tell them more about your disease than just the PSA tells, find and treat negative reactions and side effects of the ADT and, if and when the ADT stops working, they can try other techniques such as secondary ADT or chemotherapy and can guide you in finding clinical trials.
If you tell us the general area where you live, someone here may be able to recommend a doctor to you.
As to when to start ADT, there is debate about that. Dr. Patrick Walsh, one of the foremost experts in the world on PCa, thinks there is no benefit to starting ADT earlier than when the PSA is way out of control.
However, in spite of the good doctor, I would be inclined to start it earlier rather than later. My reasoning is: It can never be good to have more cancer in your body rather than less. With less total cancer in the body it seems to me there are fewer tumor cells to mutate into ADT resistant cells.
The argument for early ADT isn't just based on emotion. There have been studies that support it. My radiation oncologist, a researcher at the National Cancer Institute (I was treated in a clinical trial there) said that recent evidence indicates a survival advantage for early ADT over late.
You've been placed by fate on a rocky path that none of us like to follow. But with good treatment and a little luck, it can turn out to be a very long path, with years and years of good living still ahead.
Best of luck.
Alan
Steve Jordan - 27 Oct 2007 19:26 GMT (snip)
> The following is a brief history of my psa levels: > In August 2003 my psa was 0.31; January 2004, 0.34; July 2004, 0.57;August [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > very good about it because I believe that the Pca is growing somewhere in my > body. Omigod.
Is this a genuine cancer specialist? Is he well-experienced in treatment (tx) of prostate cancer (PCa)?
I've seen all too much about medics who either don't care or don't know about the side effects (SEs) of "chemical treatment." Now here's one who perhaps knows about them but declines to deal with them. Or doesn't know how.
"Chemical treatment" is a vague term, but I presume that he means androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) by which means one hopes to starve PCa cells that require testosterone (T) and its powerful metabolite, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), to survive and proliferate. Or maybe he means use of such meds as Taxotere™ (docetaxel).
There is much that can and should be done to deal with, for example, the SEs of ADT. They are so well known to medics who care that they have a name: Androgen Deprivation Syndrome (ADS). See the encyclopedic website of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute (PCRI) at http://www.prostate-cancer.org/education/sidefx/Strum_ADS.html or http://tinyurl.com/g6fzp
Using the Search function on the term ADS will produce many hits.
The SEs of Taxotere are also covered on the PCRI site.
One should bear in mind this grim item: The SEs of doing nothing are terrible.
The medic has done nothing about a serial rise in PSA for over a year. What is he waiting for? Metastases? And he doesn't want to see you for six months?
It might be prudent to consult a medical oncologist who is familiar with tx of PCa. Some are listed on the PCRI site via a link at http://www.prostate-cancer.org/resource/find-a-physician.html
Good luck!
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 Medical Oncologist
Steve Kramer - 27 Oct 2007 23:38 GMT >I am 69 years old now and in 1999 I was diagnosed as having prostate >cancer. Bruce the Muce! I remember. Haven't heard from you in a couple of years. Glad to see you back.
> The following is a brief history of my psa levels: > In August 2003 my psa was 0.31; January 2004, 0.34; July 2004, 0.57;August > 2005, 0.51; September 2005, 0.7; April 2006, 0.73; July 2006, 0.91; > October 2006, 1.15; April 2007, 1.47; October 2007, 2.16. Doubling time of 21.71 months or 1.81 years. Not bad, but certainly the PSAs are getting into a range where you want to do something.
> The doctor has decided to hold off on chemical treatment (Casodex, or > whatever?) until next visit because of "unpleasant side effects". I agreed > with him but I don't feel very good about it because I believe that the > Pca is growing somewhere in my body. Whether or not it's a good decision, I do not know. But, it is YOUR decision, not his, to make. It is true there are side effects with ADT. I've been on Lupron for 4+ years and Casodex for more than a year. I made the jump when my PSA was 0.32. I have had just about all the SEs and have never regretted my decision. My PSA is less than 0.04 and has been since July 2006.
There are lots of ways to handle the side effects.
 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
Leonard Evens - 28 Oct 2007 02:28 GMT > I am 69 years old now and in 1999 I was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. > My psa was in the high teens. A biopsy confirmed the diagnosis, and the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If someone would care to comment, negatively or positively, about this > little story I would be grateful. I think you've analyzed the situation correctly. It seems that PSA is now growing fast enough to merit ADT. But you might try to get some additional opinions from oncologists, particularly about the type of ADT and its timing.
> Thank you! > Bruce Alan Meyer - 28 Oct 2007 03:12 GMT > ... As a result of the radiation I have continued to be affected by > radiation proctitus. This is an on-going situation that I have > gradualy learned to live with. ... Have you tried compounds like Preparation H?
Prep H is mostly just petroleum jelly, together with some other soothing ointments. It coats the walls of the rectum and reduces friction from bowel movements and from the walls of the rectum rubbing against each other.
It works pretty well for me.
Alan
Bruce - 28 Oct 2007 17:44 GMT Wow! You guys really do respond with alacrity! Thank you! I really appreciate your thoughts and advice on my post. Living as I do, well out onto the prairies of Canada, in the Province of Manitoba, there is little choice when it comes to specialists. It is common for people in rural or small town places to travel for medical service and that's what we do. However we do not have many options as to which physician/specialist we get. We consider ourselves lucky, sometimes to get med service at all, what with the shortages of doctors and nurses. Be that as it may, we do get seen and treated, eventually. I have been reading a lot of posts and had lots of visits to web sites in the past day. It seems that those of us who have PCa want early treatment for rising PSA, but there are those professionals (I guess?), specialists who are split by the quandary of early treatment vs later treatment. My Radiation Oncologist in Winnipeg is obviously one of those who prefers not to start ADT early. My preference is early, and when my PSA began to rise I was upset by his stand. In the last year or more I've been accepting his decision without argument, just sort of sitting back FDH (Fat Dumb and Happy) and letting my health care be managed by others. Finally, with the exponential rise becoming obvious, it is time for me to make some decisions about my Tx. Thanks to you people, I feel more confident in taking charge, or at least making my opinion heard in the right places. I think I'll start with my local GP who is new to us as our Doc of 3 years left town. I hope he can find an oncologist who specializes in PCa, or at least someone who cares, and will make the appropriate referral. As for the proctitis, I will give Preparation H a try. Thanks for the suggestion. Bruce
Bruce - 28 Oct 2007 17:49 GMT Wow! You guys really do respond with alacrity! Thank you! I really appreciate your thoughts and advice on my post. Living as I do, well out onto the prairies of Canada, in the Province of Manitoba, there is little choice when it comes to specialists. It is common for people in rural or small town places to travel for medical service and that's what we do. However we do not have many options as to which physician/specialist we get. We consider ourselves lucky, sometimes to get med service at all, what with the shortages of doctors and nurses. Be that as it may, we do get seen and treated, eventually. I have been reading a lot of posts and had lots of visits to web sites in the past day. It seems that those of us who have PCa want early treatment for rising PSA, but there are those professionals (I guess?), specialists who are split by the quandary of early treatment vs later treatment. My Radiation Oncologist in Winnipeg is obviously one of those who prefers not to start ADT early. My preference is early, and when my PSA began to rise I was upset by his stand. In the last year or more I've been accepting his decision without argument, just sort of sitting back FDH (Fat Dumb and Happy) and letting my health care be managed by others. Finally, with the exponential rise becoming obvious, it is time for me to make some decisions about my Tx. Thanks to you people, I feel more confident in taking charge, or at least making my opinion heard in the right places. I think I'll start with my local GP who is new to us as our Doc of 3 years left town. I hope he can find an oncologist who specializes in PCa, or at least someone who cares, and will make the appropriate referral. As for the proctitis, I will give Preparation H a try. Thanks for the suggestion. Bruce (not the Muce, originally, but why not now?)
J - 29 Oct 2007 11:42 GMT > I am 69 years old now and in 1999 I was diagnosed as having prostate cancer. > My psa was in the high teens. A biopsy confirmed the diagnosis, and the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Thank you! > Bruce Hi Bruce, I'm from Canada as well. I couldn't find the Manitoba cancer guidelines, but here's the BC's ones. < http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/CancerManagementGuidelines/Genitourinary/Prostate/ Management/default.htm
They get as good results as anywhere else in the world. This is a link off their page, regarding treatment deicisons. http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2004/Jan/vol50-jan-cme-2.asp Your PSA seems to be rising very slowly. You might want to ask the oncologist if there are other sources of PSA in the body. The oncologist from BC, on sci.med.diseases.cancer says there are, but he did not state which organs. And other ways to reduce the PSA.
If you've ever lived with a woman who went through menopause (for some it lasts 4 or more years), drenching sweats and mood swings, that gives a glimmer of some of the side effects of hormone therapy. If you've got good quality of life now, perhaps the oncologist wants to protect you from the side effects. "pay me now" in side effects, or "pay me later" in side effects. And after all, there's other types of cancers. Do you lie awake in bed worrying about lung or colon cancer? Do you lie awake worrying about heart attack? Or falling through the ice while ice-fishing ? If not, why would you worry about a slowly rising PSA ?
3 of my grandparents and one other relative lived well into their 90's. I think that was lifestyle factors. Only 2 of their 8 children lived till 80. I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to the US. 72 for males and 75 for females. Do you want to spend the next 3 - 8 years drenched in sweat and moody as all get out, or have quality of life? And deal with it, when it happens?
Food for thought? Perspective? When talking with your doctors, including your risk factors. Best,
J
David&Joan - 30 Oct 2007 03:41 GMT J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to the US. 72 for males and 75 for females. "
No, no, no!!! The life expectancy of the average 60 year old is in the mid 80s male or female (a few years higher for females) in the US and most developed nations.
David
J - 30 Oct 2007 09:05 GMT > J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to > the US. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/health26.htm He was born in 1938 J
rosbif - 30 Oct 2007 09:30 GMT >> J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to >> the US. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >He was born in 1938 >J I don't know if there are other tables available via that link, but the one I saw provides life expectancy figures *at birth*.
For those who've already reached 60, the life expectancy figures would be higher.
Larry Sabo - 30 Oct 2007 22:02 GMT >> J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to >> the US. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >He was born in 1938 >J What you want is the life expectancy of a man of a certain age, not at birth, e.g.
http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/84F0211XIE/2004000/part1.htm says that, based on the 2004 census, in the section...
Life expectancy at birth and at age 65
"In 2004, life expectancy at birth was 80.2, 77.8 for males and 82.6 for females. Life expectancy at age 65 was 19.5, 17.7 for males and 21.0 for females."
That makes it 82.7 for a 65 year old male, and 86.0 for a 65 year old female, in 2004. It is probaly similar today.
Larry
Steve Kramer - 30 Oct 2007 12:06 GMT >J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to >the US. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 80s male or female (a few years higher for females) in the US and most > developed nations. According to national health statistics, when I was born, I had a life expectancy of 66.5 years. At 53 and a PSA of <0.04, I have an excellent change of getting within a few years of that.
cognite tute - 30 Oct 2007 15:37 GMT > J wrote: "I think the average age of death for Canadians now, is similar to > the US. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > David both statements are true.
Average life expectance is 72 and 75 at birth.
obviously is you are 72 or 75 your life expectancy is higher.
j.
|
|
|