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 / November 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Dr. Peter Scardino: When Should You Begin Hormonal Therapy?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Just - 08 Nov 2007 18:48 GMT
Some two months ago I posted some excerpts on this issue (When Should
You Begin Hormonal Therapy?) from Dr. Patrick Walsh's "Guide to
Surviving Prostate Cancer". That originated an interesting thread…

As I wrote at that time, this is a relevant issue for many of us.

Meanwhile, I bought Dr. Peter Scardino's "Prostate Book" (paperback
edition 2006) and thought it would be useful to post an excerpt from
this book. Here it goes, below.

Just
 

------------------------------------------------------------
Hormone Therapy (page 414)

"Experts disagree about the value of early versus late hormone
therapy. We even lack consensus about what constitutes "early" or
"late," though basically, early treatment means starting hormones soon
after the PSA begins to rise, and late means beginning the therapy
when symptoms or clinical signs of metastases seem imminent. There is
general agreement that it's probably not necessary to begin hormone
treatment and deal with the unpleasant side effects at the very first
sign of a rising PSA. Most experts also concur that waiting until a
man has signs or symptoms of metastases is unwise. Unfortunately, we
have no crystal ball that can predict with certainty exactly when
metastases will appear. In deciding when to begin hormone treatment,
we look at the seriousness of the original tumor. If the cancer was
high-grade (Gleason 8 to 10, stage T3a or higher) before radiation
treatment, or if the pathologist found cancer in the seminal vesicles
or pelvic lymph nodes after surgery, metastases are likely to develop
sooner than they would in someone whose original tumor was Gleason 7
or below and stage TI or T2. A short PSA doubling time of less than
ten months also predicts more rapid distant spread. The bone scan
monogram can also be useful in this setting (see page 400). Be sure to
communicate carefully with your physician to ensure that you
understand and agree with his philosophy about hormone treatment and
that your personal needs and preferences are taken into account.
If you participate in a clinical trial (see Experimental Therapies on
page 419 and the section on Investigational Treatments on page 408),
the rules of the study may govern when your treatment will begin. If
you don't enter a trial, I certainly recommend beginning hormone
therapy before a bone scan or other tests identify a definite site of
metastases. If your PSA is followed regularly, your doctor can monitor
the PSA level and doubling time and start you on hormone treatment
when the pace of cancer growth starts to accelerate. In my view,
you're probably best off delaying hormone therapy until it appears
necessary. I've seen inadequate evidence to date that starting this
treatment earlier prolongs life, and withdrawing hormones does cause
troubling side effects. When we studied men given hormone therapy for
rising PSA after radical prostatectomy at Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center, we found that 50 percent responded for ten years,
meaning the PSA dropped and stayed low. But ten years is a long time
to deal with the side effects of androgen deprivation, which can
include loss of libido and erectile function, hot flashes, decreased
muscle mass, thinning of bones and increased risk of fracture, breast
enlargement and tenderness, anemia, and possibly diminished mental
acuity. The benefits of early androgen deprivation would have to be
substantial to balance these negative effects. Nevertheless, anxiety
drives many men to demand hormone therapy early, and they are
understandably reassured by the dramatic fall in PSA.

---
NOTE: I recommend a cautious approach to hormone therapy for
metastatic prostate cancer. While it can be comforting to have your
PSA fall dramatically or even become undetectable, the relevant issue
is what's really happening to your cancer and how you can enjoy the
best quality of life for as long as possible.
---

Some experts advocate intermittent hormone therapy. Patients are given
hormone-suppressing drugs until the PSA drops to undetectable levels.
When it does, they are taken off the medication. Testosterone
production resumes, and side effects associated with its absence
(including sexual dysfunction) can resolve. When the PSA rises,
hormone treatment begins again.
Intermittent therapy offers a false promise that men can enjoy more
time free of the side effects of hormone therapy. In fact, the major
benefit is during the first cycle, when patients can be on the drugs
for 60 percent of the time and off for 40 percent. With subsequent
cycles, the time to a rising PSA shortens, and treatment must resume
sooner. Since it takes a while after the drugs are stopped to regain
functional testosterone levels, the actual amount of time that a man
can be sexually active and relieved of other side effects such as
weight gain, mood swings, anemia, lethargy, and hot flashes mar boil
down to only 10 to 15 percent of his remaining lifetime. PSA is such a
powerful, effective early warning system that overall quality of life
may be better if we simply postpone hormone treatment until the PSA
reaches 20 or so, or there are other signs of impending trouble".
Steve Jordan - 08 Nov 2007 22:04 GMT
> Some two months ago I posted some excerpts on this issue (When Should
>  You Begin Hormonal Therapy?) from Dr. Patrick Walsh's "Guide to
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> edition 2006) and thought it would be useful to post an excerpt from
> this book. Here it goes, below.

(snip)

Here's the other side of the coin:

Cury FL, et al., "Intermittent androgen ablation in patients with
biochemical failure after pelvic radiotherapy for localized prostate
cancer." Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Mar 1;64(3):842-8.

"CONCLUSIONS: The use of IAA (intermittent androgen ablation) seems to
be a safe and effective treatment for patients with biochemical failure
post radiotherapy and no evidence of metastatic disease. The use of IAA
limits hormone-related side effects and health care costs without an
apparent increase in the risk for the development of metastatic disease."

PubMed ID: 16289909. The PubMed portal is at: www.pubmed.gov

I see it was published in 2006, the same year that Scardino's book came
onto the market. Perhaps he had not seen this study.

Another 2006 clinical study is Scholz MC, et al., "Intermittent use of
testosterone inactivating pharmaceuticals using finasteride prolongs the
time off period." J Urol. 2006 May;175(5):1673-8.

"CONCLUSIONS: Finasteride doubles the duration of TOP (time off
pharmaceuticals). AIPC (androgen independent PCa) was not increased by
finasteride after almost 9 years of observation."

PubMed ID: 16600727.

Note that this is from Scardino's professional journal, The Journal of
Urology.

I think it wise to bear in mind that no one, no, not even Strum, who is
sneered at by a few as being an "outlier," claims that the procedure is
anything more than a means of alleviating SEs without reducing the
patient's survival time.

Go to the encyclopedic website of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute
and search on "intermittent androgen deprivation therapy."

I think it also wise to bear in mind that Dr. Scardino's specialty is
urology, not oncology. He might be well-qualified to opine on this
matter or he might not be. The burden of proof is on him.

He is quoted as writing, "Intermittent therapy offers a false promise
that men can enjoy more time free of the side effects of hormone
therapy." *False promise?* A very combative thing to say. Does this
pronouncement, which amounts to an accusation of lying, apply to all men
on ADT? If not, what are the proportions? Who, exactly, does Dr. S think
is lying?

He is also quoted as writing, "PSA is such a powerful, effective early
warning system that overall quality of life
may be better if we simply postpone hormone treatment until the PSA
reaches *20* or so, or there are other signs of impending trouble."

Yessirree, wait until the tumor burden is high, then try to catch up.

"Other signs of impending trouble." Such as metastases, for example?

Scardino might be a fine surgeon, but .........

Regards,

Steve J

"No patient in a civilized society should present with a PSA level that
is in double digits."
--Stephen B. Strum, MD
Medical Oncologist
Bert - 09 Nov 2007 14:27 GMT
(snip)

> I think it also wise to bear in mind that Dr. Scardino's specialty is
> urology, not oncology. He might be well-qualified to opine on this
> matter or he might not be. The burden of proof is on him.

Dr. Sardino appears to have had some significant training in
oncology. According to his bio he had a three year fellowship in urologic
oncology at the National Cancer Institute.

> He is quoted as writing, "Intermittent therapy offers a false promise
> that men can enjoy more time free of the side effects of hormone
> therapy." *False promise?* A very combative thing to say. Does this
> pronouncement, which amounts to an accusation of lying, apply to all men
> on ADT? If not, what are the proportions? Who, exactly, does Dr. S think
> is lying?

I don't take the use of the words "false promise" by Dr. Scardino to be an
accusation that someone is lying. I think he is merely saying that there is
a misperception (i.e., false promise) on the amount of time that men are
free from side effects of hormonal therapy  if one factors in: 1) lingering
side effects after discontinuence of hormonal therapy, and 2) reduction of
time to rising PSA for subsequent cycles.

My personal experience with IHT is that the side effects linger for about
6-9 months after discontinuence .

> He is also quoted as writing, "PSA is such a powerful, effective early
> warning system that overall quality of life
> may be better if we simply postpone hormone treatment until the PSA
> reaches *20* or so, or there are other signs of impending trouble."
>
> Yessirree, wait until the tumor burden is high, then try to catch up.

(snip)

I don't believe Dr. Scardino is advocating that one wait until the tumor
burden is high. I think he is saying that it is not clear if there is any
benefit to initiating HT when PSA is less than 20.   Given the side effects
and other adverse effects of HT, it might be better to delay treatment
unless, of course, "there are other signs of impending trouble".

Bert
DominicM - 09 Nov 2007 15:39 GMT
> (snip)
>
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> Bert

******************************************************************

Given that my PSA is rising after RP & SRT I am seeing Scardino's med
onc colleagues at MSKCC and they recommend given my fast PSADT (<
4mo's) and Gleason 8 that I participate in a trial (ADH + Chemo or ADH
only) when I hit a PSA of 1 (which is the clinical trial req't).

Dominic
Just - 11 Nov 2007 22:21 GMT
snip........

>I think it also wise to bear in mind that Dr. Scardino's specialty is
>urology, not oncology. He might be well-qualified to opine on this
>matter or he might not be. The burden of proof is on him.

If you look at the "Acknowledgments" (2 pages) at Dr. Scardino's book,
you will find this:

"This book is not intended to be one doctor's point of view. To
provide comprehensive, up-to-date information, we sought the help of
top medical experts, scientists working in cutting-edge research,
nurses, and many patients and their loved ones who have experienced
these problems themselves. The authors wish to thank the following for
their thoughtful and most generous input.
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center urologists Drs. James Eastham
and Bertrand Guillonneau provided countless insights fiom their vast
experience in caring for patients with prostate cancer.
Dr. Howard Scher leads the team of superb medical oncologists who have
pioneered the treatment of prostate cancer with drugs. He and Dr.
Michael Morris provided valuable perspectives on advanced prostate
cancer".

Dr. Howard Scher is Chief, Genitourinary Oncology Service at MSKCC and
Dr. Michael Morris works under him.

Dr. Howard Scher is not a nobody, he has 356 papers listed in Pubmed.
See: http://tinyurl.com/3e2mrl

Just
Steve Jordan - 11 Nov 2007 23:24 GMT
On Veteran's Day, Just replied to me:

> If you look at the "Acknowledgments" (2 pages) at Dr. Scardino's
> book, you will find this:

(ka-snip)

Hmmmm. I guess I've just been told off.

But I don't see anything in what "Just" just posted that tells anyone
anything at all about *Scardino's* qualifications to opine on matters
involving tx of PCa other than by surgery.

Nor do I see anything that questions the two clinical trial summaries I
referenced.

As for whether Dr. Scher vetted and approved of the "do nothing until
reaching PSA 20" idea, I see nothing on that point.

BTW, I'm sympathetic to Dr. Scher, as investors in Dendreon Corporation
have viciously attacked him in the press, online, and in court for his
recommendation that FDA approval of Provenge be delayed while further
testing is performed. Absolutely no one has produced a shred of evidence
that even one point in Dr. Scher's letter to the FDA was incorrect or
based upon corrupt motives. They attack him merely because he spoke up
and they were prevented from profiting on their investments.

Regards,

Steve J

PS: Nor do I see anything contrary to this quotation that I've
previously posted:

"No patient in a civilized society should present with a PSA level that
is in double digits."
--Stephen B. Strum, MD
Medical Oncologist
Just - 12 Nov 2007 00:33 GMT
snip......

>But I don't see anything in what "Just" just posted that tells anyone
>anything at all about *Scardino's* qualifications to opine on matters
>involving tx of PCa other than by surgery.

No one is a specialist in all and every area of prostate cancer. Are
you saying that, therefore, no one should put together an overall view
on prostate cancer - even with the support and views of other
specialists?

snip...

>As for whether Dr. Scher vetted and approved of the "do nothing until
>reaching PSA 20" idea, I see nothing on that point.

I find it reasonable to assume that the book conveys the main views of
the medical experts involved in the production of the book - in their
areas of expertise. Realistically, would Dr. Scardino produce that
statement if Dr. Scher's opinion was clearly different?

snip...

>PS: Nor do I see anything contrary to this quotation that I've previously posted:
>"No patient in a civilized society should present with a PSA level that
>is in double digits." Stephen B. Strum, MD, Medical Oncologist

It seems that not everyone agrees with that. And that is our dilemma,
isn't it?

Best wishes.

Just
Steve Jordan - 12 Nov 2007 01:13 GMT
Again of=n Veteran's Day, "Just" just replied to me:

> No one is a specialist in all and every area of prostate cancer. Are
> you saying that, therefore, no one should put together an overall
> view on prostate cancer - even with the support and views of other
> specialists?

I am saying what I am saying. Nothing more; nothing less.

> I find it reasonable to assume that the book conveys the main views
> of the medical experts involved in the production of the book - in
> their areas of expertise. Realistically, would Dr. Scardino produce
> that statement if Dr. Scher's opinion was clearly different?

Assumptions kill.

Do we know what Dr. Scher's opinion is? No, we do not.

And if we did know, what does that tell us? Answer: nothing. Except
perhaps that opinions vary.

Quoting me:

>> PS: Nor do I see anything contrary to this quotation that I've
>> previously posted: "No patient in a civilized society should
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It seems that not everyone agrees with that. And that is our dilemma,
>  isn't it?

Um, lemme see. Patients in a civilized society *should* present with a
PSA level that is in double digits?

Sounds dangerous to me.

I see no dilemma in choosing to attack my enemy while he is weakest. In
PCa that means low PSA.

Regards,

Steve J
I.P. Freely - 12 Nov 2007 03:14 GMT
> I see no dilemma in choosing to attack my enemy while he is weakest. In
> PCa that means low PSA.

When (and how) to attack depends on the desired and undesired effects of
the attack, the rest of the patient's  PSA/PC story, the patient's
status and priorities, statistics, and many other criteria. Biiiiiig
dilemma for most people.

I.P.
rosbif - 12 Nov 2007 08:11 GMT
>"No patient in a civilized society should
>>> present with a PSA level that is in double digits." Stephen B.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Sounds dangerous to me.

The danger is that you've rendered absurd Just's fair comment by
twisting a playful but phony opposite on Strum.

The negation of <no patients> is <some patients>...it isn't, as you
imply above, <all patients>.

A fairer counter would have been - "Some patients in a civilised
society could present....

Isn't that the heart of the dilemma?  -  *who are they?*.
Steve Jordan - 12 Nov 2007 17:22 GMT
On November 12, rosbif addressed me:

> The danger is that you've rendered absurd Just's fair comment by
> twisting a playful but phony opposite on Strum.
>
> The negation of <no patients> is <some patients>...it isn't, as you
> imply above, <all patients>.

I implied nothing. Strum's quote stands on its own and is not amenable
to parsing by anyone.

Regards,

Steve J
Bert - 12 Nov 2007 21:09 GMT
Perhaps you are misconstruing Dr. Strum's quote. When he says, as you report
it  : "No patient in a civilized society should present with a PSA level
that is in double digits.", I believe he is referring to newly diagnosed
patients.  I interpret his statement to mean that with the advent of PSA
testing, all patients should be diagnosed before they reach double digit
levels.

I believe that the comments attributed to Dr. Scardino are part of a
discussion on when treatment might commence, not when PCa should have been
detected.

Bert

> On November 12, rosbif addressed me:
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Steve J
rosbif - 14 Nov 2007 09:04 GMT
>On November 12, rosbif addressed me:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I implied nothing. Strum's quote stands on its own and is not amenable
>to parsing by anyone.

Now that's what I call respect!
I.P. Freely - 15 Nov 2007 01:29 GMT
>> On November 12, rosbif addressed me:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Now that's what I call respect!

Parsing is a mechanical sentence structure analysis done by language
majors, not by physicians, and a quote is a quote is a quote. Accent not
withstanding, "Ah'll be baaaak" also stands on its own and is not
amenable to parsing by anyone.

I mention this only in case Just is not familiar with prior discussions
of Strum's credibility among his peers.

I.P.
Steve Jordan - 15 Nov 2007 01:32 GMT
On November 14, Freely wrote:

> Parsing is a mechanical sentence structure analysis done by language
> majors, not by physicians, and a quote is a quote is a quote.

(snip)

"Parse" according to my online dictionary, actually means "analyze (a
sentence) into its parts and describe their syntactic roles. • Computing
analyze (a string or text) into logical syntactic components, typically
in order to test conformability to a logical grammar. • examine or
analyze minutely."

My meaning, as anyone could readily see, was the last.

Regards,

Steve J
MikeHi - 12 Nov 2007 18:40 GMT
Hi Just

Thanks for your post.  I was provided with very useful information,
and also experienced confusion, in your earlier post's follow-ups. The
simple question is "when?".

I haven't up to date found a straightforward answer. Scardino is
clear-cut as no other I've read.  I can relate to all his key factors.

He fixes the problem -or anyway my problem:  

> There is general agreement that it's probably not necessary to begin
>hormone treatment and deal with the unpleasant side effects at the very first
>sign of a rising PSA. Most experts also concur that waiting until
>a man has signs or symptoms of metastases is unwise. Unfortunately, we have no crystal ball
>that can predict with certainty exactly when metastases will appear. <

That's surely the exact no-man's land in the battlefield.  We -I -am
groping across 'Whenland'. Knowing the ambush is worse if I get it
wrong. Scardino has lit the area up - for me. Now I'll know when I've
crossed it, before I run into the Pca's strongpoint. He writes:

:> In deciding when to begin hormone treatment,we look at the seriousness of the original
>tumor. If the cancer was high-grade (Gleason 8 to 10, stage T3a or higher) before radiation
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>therapy before a bone scan or other tests identify a definite site of metastases.<
>therapy before a bone scan or other tests identify a definite site of metastases.<

My Gleason 9, Stage T3c. Starting PSA. 14.11.
Prostate ablated by HIFU April 2006.
PSA, end November 2006 was 3, July 2007 it was 6.0.
Biopsy in Seminal Vesicle found G7, treated with HIFU August 2007.
PSA October (locally, not at hospital and only two months after op.,
so may not be accurate) 5.0. (Had further test at the hospital. I'm in
course of getting result.)
MRI scan due end December (To see if possible micro stuff in sem.ves.
becoming visible)..

I qualify for all Dr Scardino's pin-points. End December isn't long.
But it looks as though my New Year's resolution is going to be 'take
the pills'.

That raises another vexed question for me for which I need more help
please.

I was prescribed 150mg Casodex earlier this year- in one dose daily-
which I haven't yet taken, rightly or wrongly, maybe wrongly. But
Walsh says this big dose is  banned in USA as it created cardiac
problems. I already have cardiac problems.  Reading Scardino, my
profile looks as though if I don't get a big dose, nobody should! But
as it now looks imminent, I would appreciate knowing more, please.
Many thanks.

The very best to all.
MikeHI
Steve Jordan - 12 Nov 2007 19:41 GMT
(snip)

> I was prescribed 150mg Casodex earlier this year- in one dose daily-
> which I haven't yet taken, rightly or wrongly, maybe wrongly. But
> Walsh says this big dose is  banned in USA as it created cardiac
> problems. I already have cardiac problems.  Reading Scardino, my
> profile looks as though if I don't get a big dose, nobody should! But
> as it now looks imminent, I would appreciate knowing more, please.

See http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/bicalutamide_ids.htm for
information. A quick look disclosed this about cardiac problems:

"Cardiovascular: Angina pectoris; Congestive heart failure; Myocardial
infarct; Heart arrest; Coronary artery disorder; Syncope" in =/>2% but <
5% of patients.

The most serious possible SE seems to be liver damage.

The 150 mg dosage is indeed not approved in the US. In 2003, the UK
Committee on Safety of Medicines withdrew approval of Casodex 150mg for
localized PCa. I understand that this has been expanded, but have not
run it down. The oncologist-consultant should know. See
http://tinyurl.com/2yvm8p

Also a heads-up: There was recently much in the UK news about
counterfeit Casodex on the market.

Regards,

Steve J

> Many thanks.
>
> The very best to all.
> MikeHI
Just - 12 Nov 2007 20:00 GMT
snip.........

>My Gleason 9, Stage T3c. Starting PSA. 14.11.
>Prostate ablated by HIFU April 2006.
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>profile looks as though if I don't get a big dose, nobody should! But
>as it now looks imminent, I would appreciate knowing more, please.

snip.........

Hi Mike!

If you have doubts regarding your next step, I suggest you get a
second opinion from a reputed medical oncologist (if available were
you live). Of course, you should not base your treatment decisions on
advice in a newsgroup (however, you may get food for thought…).

It seems that you have read Walsh's book. Just in case you have an
earlier / different edition, I quote below an excerpt from the latest
edition with comments on Casodex / bicalutamide. I hope this is
useful.

And likely you will get inputs from those with direct experience on
Casodex.

Good luck.

Just

----------------------------
(page 458) "More recently, however, doctors have become interested in
using antiandrogens, especially bicalutamide, as monotherapy - that
is, as a single agent, without any other form of treatment. The main
goal here is to attempt to preserve sexual function. When bicalutamide
is given in doses of 50 mg, three times a day, sexual interest is
maintained in many men; however, beyond one year, only about 20
percent of men remain potent. This 150-mg daily dose of bicalutamide
has been used in men with various stages of prostate cancer. For men
with metastatic disease, it is less effective than an LHRH agonist. In
men who don't have metastatic disease, there is a major red flag.
Although bicalutamide at this dose was never approved for use in the
United States, it was in other countries. However, in England and
Canada, the license for this use was withdrawn. This was based on the
findings of a study in which men with localized disease were randomly
assigned either to receive a placebo or to receive 150 mg of
bicalutamide a day. More men in the bicalutamide group died - 25
percent versus 20 percent of the men taking the placebo. The reason
for this is unclear, but (as we will discuss later), this study's
results are similar to the long-term findings of the Medical Research
Council study. In this study, of men who received early hormonal
therapy, the improvements in overall survival disappeared. Over time,
because it is so tough on the rest of the body, prolonged hormonal
therapy may do more harm than good.
Thus, men with metastatic disease should not be treated with
antiandrogen monotherapy. However, for men who start taking
antiandrogens when they have locally advanced disease, the survival
rate appears to be about the same. Thus, there is great interest in
using these drugs in men with advanced cancer that has not yet
metastasized to bone…

… Conclusion The fact that men can retain sexual interest makes
antiandrogens the focus of intense research - particularly, scientists
are investigating combining these drugs with others in hopes of
improving quality of life in men undergoing hormonal therapy. However,
the use of high dose antiandrogens as the only form of hormonal
therapy for prostate cancer has not yet been approved in the United
States. We need to understand the reason for the higher risk of death
in men who receive 150 mg a day of bicalutamide before patients can
safely consider this option".
Just - 12 Nov 2007 20:37 GMT
snip......

>I see no dilemma in choosing to attack my enemy while he is weakest. In
>PCa that means low PSA.

snip......

Hi Steve!

Dr. Scardino sees it differently. Below please find a quote from Dr.
Scardino's book (page 411) on treatment options for metastatic
prostate cancer.

Best wishes.

Just

-------------------------------------------

"TREATMENT OPTIONS

If your PSA is rising and the tumor cannot be shown to have recurred
in the prostate area, we must presume that the cancer has spread to
distant sites. Even so, there are several treatment choices, including
watchful waiting, hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and clinical trials
of investigational agents.

WATCHFUL WAITING

This is a reasonable option, since there is no proven way to cure
prostate cancer in this situation, and though a few trials have
suggested that early hormone treatment may prolong survival, we lack
definitive evidence that this is the case. The goal is to keep you
feeling well and symptom free for as long as possible, hopefully for
the rest of your natural life.

Many physicians recommend careful monitoring with regular checks of
the PSA level and postpone hormone treatment and its side effects for
as long as possible. Annual bone scans and periodic MRIs of the pelvis
are reasonable studies that may alert us to actual sites of spread.
The PSA level and its doubling time are the best indicators of when it
may be necessary to intervene. Treatment can reasonably be postponed
as long as you have no symptoms, imaging scans show no cancer, and
your PSA doubling time is greater than six months".
Steve Jordan - 12 Nov 2007 21:49 GMT
On November 12, "Just" replied to me:

> Hi Steve!

Hi!.

> Dr. Scardino sees it differently. Below please find a quote from Dr.
> Scardino's book (page 411) on treatment options for metastatic
> prostate cancer.

Maybe I'm er, just dense, but I don't see anything in the citation that
is contrary to what I wrote, which is consistent with what medics who
know more than any of us here have written.

Frex, Strum, when doing research on IADT in the late '90's, selected PSA
5.0 ng/mL as the point at which to restart ADT. See PCRI Insights,
October 2003, page 2.

Also see Nair B, et al., "Early versus deferred androgen suppression in
the treatment of advanced prostatic cancer."  Cochrane Database Syst
Rev. 2002;(1):CD003506. PubMed ID 11869665.

This was a meta-review of clinical trials. After struggling with the
differences between them, the review included this: "....the available
information suggests that early androgen suppression for treatment of
advanced prostate cancer reduces disease progression and complications
due to progression."

There's also Graff JN et al., "Predictors of overall and cancer-free
survival of patients with localized prostate cancer treated with primary
androgen suppression therapy: results from the prostate cancer outcomes
study." J Urol. 2007 Apr;177(4):1307-12. PubMed ID 17382720.

Among the findings: "Independent predictors of shorter overall survival
were patient age 75 years or older, prostate specific antigen 20 ng/ml
or greater, Gleason score 7 or greater and abnormal digital rectal
examination. Gleason score 7 or greater, prostate specific antigen 20
ng/ml or greater and a low comorbidity index were independent predictors
of shorter cancer specific survival."

The conclusion: "The use of primary androgen suppression therapy in the
Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study data set resulted in 91% 5-year cancer
specific survival. Advanced age, and factors that reflect tumor burden
and biology were predictive of overall survival, while cancer specific
survival was predicted by tumor factors and the burden of comorbid
conditions."

The PubMed home page is at: www.pubmed.gov

The selection of a cutpoint at which to restart ADT is indeed a matter
of debate, though I have not seen any clinical evidence for doing
nothing until the PSA reaches 20. Maybe Scardino has included, as he
should have, a reference in his book.

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. The use of early ADT3 as advocated by our group (Scholz, Lam &
myself) & also by Leibowitz & Tucker & also per the experiences of Myers &
Tisman, all attest to the rational, logical endocrinologic approach to PC
management. Surprisingly, only a few others in academic medicine have ever
gone that route. Dr. Oefelin in Cleveland is one of these. In my experience
it is the early use of therapy before the tumor burden increases
substantially that allows for long term responses."
--Stephen B. Strum, MD
Medical Oncologist
I.P. Freely - 13 Nov 2007 04:23 GMT
> Maybe I'm er, just dense, but I don't see anything in the citation that
> is contrary to what I wrote, which is consistent with what medics who
> know more than any of us here have written.

Snipped an impressive battery of support for early ADT timing.

Steve's always-impressive array of studies and citations is once again
persuasive towards beginning ADT early in the game, but they concentrate
on its positive side to the exclusion of its dark side. As many
discussions here beginning in the '04-'05 winter and referencing many
studies showed, ADT also has a very negative side: its therapeutic ratio
[its ratio of expected benefit (additional longevity) to expected harm
(side effects)]. I strongly recommend that anyone considering ADT
treatment of recurring PC before encountering symptoms add these two
steps to their decision:
1. Search the forum archives on key words such as <hormone> and <ADT>
maybe <HT>. You'll find a great many facts, references, opinions, and
debates on ADT's pros and cons.
2. Expand your search to add newer ADT data and opinions; additional
pros and cons have surfaced in the literature -- and thus right here --
since then.

People should, and probably will, ask me to cite references. I politely
decline, for several reasons:
1. I've posted them before. They should surface in step 1 above.
2. Most of my specific cites disappeared in a hard drive erasure years ago.
3. I haven't the time or inclination to repeat my research and dig up
the  cites again. I'm saving that effort for when my PSA climbs again.
I'm constantly in awe of those here willing to endlessly dig up all
those citations every time they're appropriate.
4. The research is a valuable process if confined to valid sources,
which become apparent pretty quickly. Don't forget medical books in the
bookstore; they're written for doctors, but we can follow the gist readily.
5. Some readers may be inclined for convenience to hit only cited
sources or rely on anecdotal results, which can be misleading if they
emphasize one side of an issue.

I.P.
MikeHi - 13 Nov 2007 12:00 GMT
Professor Gordon Duff - Chairman of Committee on Safety of Medicines
Date:    28 October 2003

Hi Steve

Your reference http://tinyurl.com/2yvm8p resolves my query. Didn't
know this advice existed in UK so very many thanks. I've never had any
doubt docs dealing with me know full well what they're doing, but I'm
a curious nuisance and also like to know everything I can about my
condition and stuff I'm treated with. The site also answered a long
standing confusion I've had about different kinds of 'advanced' Pca.
That and Scardino, for me means I can quite merrily go on my way with
Casodex 150 when it's time comes, which re Scardino means soon. I
don't fear; I don't fear fear; I fear only absence of knowledge about
what is, or might be, happening to me. (And no, I'm not asking for a
forecast).

Thanks too Just. I have the latest Walsh and it was from his book I
started this query. Incidentally I've also searched his book
unsuccessfully for a definition of  what is 'advanced' (because I've
always had it) and which is advanced advanced - if you see what I
mean? Nobody usually does!  (Ho ho ho - I hope!)

Rosbif, Clarence and other wise experienced UK guys probably know it
but in case there are any UK slowcoaches like me re this aspect of
Casodex , I extract the following relevant info:

>UK Committee on Safety of Medicines 28 October 2003
Excerpts:

Casodex 150mg (bicalutamide) is no longer licensed for the treatment
of localised prostate cancer. *Localised" is considered to be a
relatively small tumour, with no tumour spread outside the prostate
gland.*

Casodex 150mg is also used in patients with locally advanced prostate
cancer, as immediate therapy either alone or as adjuvant to treatment
by radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy (*locally advanced is
considered to be a larger tumour or tumours with spread to lymph
nodes, but not involving spread to other organs*). CSM advised that
the overall risk benefit remained positive in this group

The risk:benefit for other uses is not affected by these new data.
These are:
* Casodex 150mg in the management of patients with locally advanced,
non-metastatic prostate cancer for whom surgical castration or other
medical intervention is not considered appropriate or acceptable.< End
Excerpts>
Searched Google but can't see any changes since thenn.

OOps -one more question! (Yawns all round -sorry). I'm prescribed
150mg in one hit. Isn't it normally  50 times 3?

Thanks
MikeHi
rosbif - 14 Nov 2007 09:01 GMT
>Rosbif, Clarence and other wise experienced UK guys probably know it
>but in case there are any UK slowcoaches like me re this aspect of
>Casodex , I extract the following relevant info:

Hi Mike, no, I'm a fresher on HT generally but I usually check the
posts to see if our pundits can reach an accommodation and offer some
rules of thumb.  I expect to have to weigh all this up for myself
sooner or later so always interested in the illuminating Qs and As.
(gentlemen! I suppose a FAQ's out of the question?)

>>UK Committee on Safety of Medicines 28 October 2003
>Excerpts:

Thanks for posting that - the best to you - r
 
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.