Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2007
Dr. Peter Scardino: When Should You Begin Hormonal Therapy?
|
|
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
|
|
|