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 BPH / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Erectile difficulties from dutesteride and finesteride

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Physician - 03 Jan 2006 08:17 GMT
I am a physician who was the medical director of one the largest
erectile dysfunction/sexual dysfunction clinics in the world.  Many of
the treatments for BPH cause erection problems.

Finesteride and dutesteride both block the formation of
Dihydrotestosterone which is essential for normal sexual function and
needed for good erections, for sperm production and ejaculation. These
medications can also shrink an enlarged prostate.  Even though only
3-5% of men will have profound erection problems when they start these
medications the majority of men using them will have a significant and
very real decline in the quality of their erections.  Spontaneous
erections and mornming erection will become less frequent and
eventually stop which are one of many signs that a man's sexual
functionis being weakened while on these medications. These changes
that happen gradually and very few doctors know the correct questions
to ask to detect these problems. But once erections have started to
weaken it is my experience that these changes are usually irreversible.
Stopping these medications will not restore normal erections again.
Most men who experience erectile problems on these medications it is
irreversible.

I am also sickened by the large numbers of men who are receiving
radical prostatectomies for small or minor elevation of the PSA.  There
are many men with no symptoms or signs of BPH but who have only a small
increase in their PSA who are recieving biopsy's of their prostate.

In Canada Urologists make a living doing procedures.

So when a man is referred to an urologist even when the prostate is not
enlarged and their are no symptoms the patients are often told that to
be safe they should have an ultrasound and a biopsy.

Well most men with prostate cancer never find out that they have it and
die from something else. In fact if you did an autopsy on men 60 years
old, 60% will have microscopic prostate cancer, 70% of men aged 70
years old will have prostate cancer, 80% 0f men over 80 will have
microscopic prostate cancer, and 90% of men aged 90 years old will have
prostate cancer but very few of these men will ever die or have
problems from their cancer.

That is why it is dangerous to be doing routine biopsies on men with a
PSA below 10.

Because if you are 70 years old you will have up to a 70% chance of
that test showing that you have cancer, even though their is only less
that a 1/10 chance that that cancer will ever enlarge and cause you
problems.  If the prostate is normal only if that PSA goes from below
10 to well over 10 do you need to have a biopsy.

Most men with a positive biopsy within days or a few weeks are having a
radical prostatectomy, which means they will never ever ejaculate
again; they will never ever have a normal erection without using
intra-penile injections.  More than 50% will be incontinent of urine
and have to wear diapers for the rest of their lives, and perhaps 20%
will have fecal incontinence.

In fact the majority of men I see who have profound sexual dysfunction
from prostate cancer had no symptoms and the only reason they had the
biopsy was because of a minor increase in their PSA.

Since the introduction of the PSA test Urologists are doing 4 times
more radical prostatectomy's even though their has been no decrease
in the death rate from prostate cancer!  Doctors may just doing more
un-necessary surgeries on men who would never have had any problems if
they had been left alone.

If you have a PSA test that is less than 10, wait a few months and
repeat it. Only if the PSA is rising, or you have signifcant
enlargement, reduced or blocked urine flow or asymetry or a nodule
should you consider a biopsy if your PSA is below 10.  If you elect to
have a biopsy remember if it is positive you will imediately have the
quality of your life profundly changed in a very short period of time!

Remember erectile problems rarely are caused by the prostate, it is the
tests and procedures such as cystoscopies, biopsies and
TURPS/prostatectomies done by urologists that damage the penis that are
going to ruin your sex life, not the postate itself if it is left
alone. All patients need to be fully informed before they can make an
informed choice about the choices of treatment offered to them.
c palmer - 03 Jan 2006 10:26 GMT
who ever posted this is NOT a doctor.  they do not use their real name.
they don't say where they work.  they make many false claims and twist
facts with half truths.  this post is down right dangerous because if
just one man took his advice - believed it and failed to follow up with
proper medical care.  it could make the difference between a chance at
being cured and being terminal.  yet, this poster would probably laugh
and hide behind his computer because he got someone to believe his bag
of trash.

p.s.  they sure didn't use spell checker either......  see how many
mispelled words there are....       want him for a doctor?

~ curtis  ~ prostate cancer survivor

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

From: ddsmd@rogers.com (Physician)
I am a physician who was the medical director of one the largest
erectile dysfunction/sexual dysfunction clinics in the world.

WHAT IS YOUR NAME AND WHERE DO YOU WORK?

Finesteride and dutesteride both block the formation of
Dihydrotestosterone which is essential for normal sexual function and
needed for good erections, for sperm production and ejaculation. These
medications can also shrink an enlarged prostate.

THESE DRUGS ARE SUPPOSE TO SHRINK AN ENLARGE PROSTATE.

WHY STOP AT TWO DRUGS?  HERE IS THE WHOLE LIST..........

The following is a list of medications and non-prescription drugs that
may cause impotence:
Antidepressant and other psychiatric medications:
Amitriptyline (Elavil)
Buspirone (Buspar)
Chlordiazepoxide (Librium)
Chlorpromazine (Thorazine)
Clorazepate (Tranxene)
Desipramine (Norpramin)
Diazepam (Valium)
Doxepin (Sinequan)
Fluoxetine (Prozac)
Fluphenazine (Prolixin)
Imipramine (Tofranil)
Lorazepam (Ativan)
Meprobamate (Equanil)
Mesoridazine (Serentil)
Nortriptyline (Pamelor)
Oxazepam (Serax)
Phenelzine (Nardil)
Phenytoin (Dilantin)
Thioridazine (Mellaril)
Thiothixene (Navane)
Tranylcypromine (Parnate)
Trifluoperazine (Stelazine)
Antihistamine medications:
Dimenhydrinate (Dramamine)
Diphenhydramine (Benadryl)
Hydroxyzine (Vistaril)
Meclizine (Antivert)
Promethazine (Phenergan)
Antihypertensive and diuretic medications:
Atenolol (Tenormin)
Bethanidine
Chlorothiazide (Diuril)
Chlorthalidone (Hygroton)
Clonidine (Catapres)
Enalapril (Vasotec)
Guanabenz (Wytensin)
Guanethidine (Ismelin)
Guanfacine (Tenex)
Haloperidol (Haldol)
Hydralazine (Apresoline)
Hydrochlorothiazide (Esidrix)
Labetalol (Normodyne)
Methyldopa (Aldomet)
Metoprolol (Lopressor)
Minoxidil (Loniten)
Phenoxybenzamine (Dibenzyline)
Phentolamine (Regitine)
Prazosin (Minipress)
Propranolol (Inderal)
Reserpine (Serpasil)
Spironolactone (Aldactone)
Triamterene (Maxide)
Verapamil (Calan)

Among the anti-hypertensive medications, thiazides are the most common
cause of ED, followed by beta-blockers. Alpha-blockers are, in general,
less likely to cause this problem.
Anti Parkinson's disease medications:
Benztropine (Cogentin)
Biperiden (Akineton)
Bromocriptine (Parlodel)
Levodopa (Sinemet)
Procyclidine (Kemadrin)
Trihexyphenidyl (Artane)
Chemotherapy medications:
Antiandrogens (Casodex, Flutamide, Nilutamide)
Busulfan (Myleran)
Cyclophosphamide (Cytoxan)
Ketoconazole
LHRH agonists (Lupron, Zoladex)
Other medications:
Aminocaproic acid (Amicar)
Atropine
Clofibrate (Atromid-S)
Cyclobenzaprine (Flexeril)
Cyproterone
Digoxin (Lanoxin)
Disopyramide (Norpace)
Estrogen
Finesteride (Propecia, Proscar)
Furazolidone (Furoxone)
H2 Blockers (Tegamet, Zantac, Pepcid)
Indomethacin (Indocin)
Lipid lowering-agents
Licorice
Metoclopramide (Reglan)
NSAIDs (Ibuprofen, etc.)
Orphenadrine (Norflex)
Prochlorperazine (Compazine)
Opiate analgesics (painkillers)
Morphine
Methadone
Fentanyl (Innovar)
Meperidine (Demerol)
Codeine
Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percodan)
Hydromorphone (Dilaudid)
Recreational Drugs:
Alcohol
Amphetamines
Barbiturates
Cocaine
Marijuana
Heroin
Nicotine

Spontaneous erections and mornming erection will become less frequent
and eventually stop which are one of many signs that a man's sexual
functionis being weakened while on these medications.

THESE DRUGS STATE THAT THERE CAN BE SIDE EFFECTS.

But once erections have started to weaken it is my experience that these
changes are usually irreversible.

THAT IS 100% FALSE !!!!

I am also sickened by the large numbers of men who are receiving radical
prostatectomies for small or minor elevation of the PSA. There are many
men with no symptoms or signs of BPH but who have only a small increase
in their PSA who are recieving biopsy's of their prostate.

I MUST MAKE YOU SICK BECAUSE I AM ONE OF THOSE MEN WHO HAD AN RP !!!!

Well most men with prostate cancer never find out that they have it and
die from something else.

GO TELL THAT TO MY DAD...... HE KNEW HE HAD IT WHEN HE HAD A PSA OF 6
AND HE DIED FROM PROSTATE CANCER !!!!

In fact if you did an autopsy on men 60 years old, 60% will have
microscopic prostate cancer, 70% of men aged 70 years old will have
prostate cancer, 80% 0f men over 80 will have microscopic prostate
cancer, and 90% of men aged 90 years old will have prostate cancer but
very few of these men will ever die or have problems from their cancer.

THAT IS TOTALLY FALSE !!!!  THOSE FACTS APPLY TO A CORRELATION BETWEEN
THE AGE OF MEN AND THE PER CENT WHO HAD PROSTATE PROBLEMS - NOT PROSTATE
CANCER........

IT IS A FACT THAT AUTOPSIES DONE ON MEN IN THEIR 50'S - ONLY 20% OF THEM
HAD MICROSCOPIC CANCER

That is why it is dangerous to be doing routine biopsies on men with a
PSA below 10.

PROVE IT WITH FACTS!!!!!!  MY PSA WAS 6.35 AND I HAD PROSTATE CANCER IN
BOTH LOBES!!!!

Because if you are 70 years old you will have up to a 70% chance of that
test showing that you have cancer, even though their is only less that a
1/10 chance that that cancer will ever enlarge and cause you problems.
If the prostate is normal only if that PSA goes from below 10 to well
over 10 do you need to have a biopsy.

FOR SOMEONE WHO WORKS WITH MEN AND PROSTATES,  YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT
NATIONAL CUTOFF IS 4.0, NOT 10 -  BEFORE A BIOPSY IS NORMALLY PERFORMED.

Most men with a positive biopsy within days or a few weeks are having a
radical prostatectomy,

EARLY TREATMENT IS THE BEST CHANCE AT SURVIVAL...........

which means they will never ever ejaculate again;

THAT CAN NOT BE HELPED.....

they will never ever have a normal erection without using intra-penile
injections.

THAT IS A BUNCH OF CRAP.  I WAS GETTING ERECTIONS WITH THE CATHETER
STILL IN PLACE.....

More than 50% will be incontinent of urine and have to wear diapers for
the rest of their lives, and perhaps 20% will have fecal incontinence.

ANOTHER BIG LIE.  97% OF MEN AT CONTINENT AFTER ONE YEAR, AND THE
SURGERY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FECAL INCONTINENCE.

In fact the majority of men I see who have profound sexual dysfunction
from prostate cancer had no symptoms and the only reason they had the
biopsy was because of a minor increase in their PSA.
Since the introduction of the PSA test Urologists are doing 4 times more
radical prostatectomy's even though their has been no decrease in the
death rate from prostate cancer!

THAT IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST LIE OF THIS WHOLE POST.  YOU HAVE A CHANCE
FOR A NORMAL LIFE AFTER THE RP, NOT DEATH.

Remember erectile problems rarely are caused by the prostate, it is the
tests and procedures such as cystoscopies, biopsies and
TURPS/prostatectomies done by urologists that damage the penis that are
going to ruin your sex life, not the postate itself if it is left alone.

ANOTHER LIE - I'VE HAD CYSTOS DONE, A BIOPSY AND A PROSTATECTOMY AND IT
DIDN'T RUIN MY SEX LIFE.  THE PROSTATE CANCER DID.

========
my comments - the FDA approved drugs do not normally cause permanent
problems.  elevated psa's are a sign that something is going on.  it can
be as simple as a prostate infection to something more serious.

prostate cancer is dangerous because you don't feel you have anything
wrong.  the cancer itself is like a bulldog and will never, ever give up
any cell it consumes.  

the prostate's job is to make up the psa and mix it with the semen.

the erectile nerves run outside the prostate.

word to the wise - if you find out that you have an elevated psa number.
if the doctor doesn't to it, request a two week supply of antibiotics
such as Levaquin and have the psa taken after that period.  this should
remove the chance of an prostate infection and give a better reading.
then, if the number is still high, get a second opinion.  

low psa's to everyone......

~ curtis  
psa is undetectable after 2 1/2 years.  

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Gene F. Rhodes - 03 Jan 2006 16:49 GMT
Thank you Physician.
I for one believe all you say and would like to hear more from you.
thanks again
Gene   http://www.photoprojects.net/

> I am a physician who was the medical director of one the largest
> erectile dysfunction/sexual dysfunction clinics in the world.  Many of
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
> alone. All patients need to be fully informed before they can make an
> informed choice about the choices of treatment offered to them.
Pete - 03 Jan 2006 19:49 GMT
This is scary stuff, especially when you read c. palmer's response (which
accuses the physician of not being a physician - which could very well be
true), and then read Genes response, which thanks him (i.e. just the
opposite).  That is why it is dangerous to believe everything you read on
the Internet, and you have to be very careful.  I have seen stuff like this
before (maybe from the same person - who knows).

By copy of this, I request Dr. Sancha comment on the "supposed physician's"
post.  It sounds pretty shady to me also, since the author did not identify
himself like our Dr. Sancha does...Pete

> I am a physician who was the medical director of one the largest
> erectile dysfunction/sexual dysfunction clinics in the world.  Many of
[quoted text clipped - 76 lines]
> alone. All patients need to be fully informed before they can make an
> informed choice about the choices of treatment offered to them.
c palmer - 03 Jan 2006 21:13 GMT
From: pete@nospam.net (Pete)

This is scary stuff, especially when you read c. palmer's response
(which accuses the physician of not being a physician - which could very
well be true), and then read Genes response, which thanks him (i.e. just
the opposite). That is why it is dangerous to believe everything you
read on the Internet, and you have to be very careful. I have seen stuff
like this before (maybe from the same person - who knows).

By copy of this, I request Dr. Sancha comment on the "supposed
physician's" post. It sounds pretty shady to me also, since the author
did not identify himself like our Dr. Sancha does...Pete

=======
hi pete - i can't speak for the physician, but i have a real address, a
real name and i've been there - done that - got the t-shirt.

i've studied prostate cancer for over 15 years in great detail.  

what started my studies into pca was my dad.  they told him to do
watchful waiting and i couldn't understand why. so, i started to
research it.    he had a psa of 6 and was in good health.  

he had an 8th grade education, so he trusted doctors.

so, after two and a half years, my dad's psa went from 6 to 288.   keep
in mind, this was a urologist that was treating him, not a general
doctor.

it was at that point, they put him on lupron shots.  

i watched what the shots did to him and i watch my dad go hormone
refractive.

i watch the bone pain set in the last years of his life and i watched as
the prostate cancer took his life.

so, when i see something so blatantly obvious wrong in information, i
will speak up.

now, in defense of gene........ every one is entitled to their own
opinion.  i have no problem with that.  and as he said, he believes a
poster who calls himself a physician, that's fine.

i believe in live and let live.

i responded to the physician's post and gave my facts.  

i realize that this is a BPH newsgroup.  i want to respect that.  

i had BPH symptoms for three years before i was dx'ed with pca.

my BPH was so bad, that the prostate was over 2 1/2 times it's size and
had enlarged and pushed it's way into the floor of the bladder.  the
ultra sound testing showed that i was retaining 50 ml of urine each
time.

my flow kept getting worse and i was thinking it was the BPH that was
causing it.

my nightly trips to the bathroom were getting more frequent, so i
thought it all just went hand in hand with BPH.

it was when i was on the operating table that the surgeon found a finger
of the BPH tissue had grown out of the prostate muscle band and was
pushing into the bladder causing the bladder wall to fold over the
output hole.  he told me that i would have been in total rental shut
down within 6 months anyway.  so i was really lucky - if you want to
call it that - that all of this happened.

now, that i have all of this behind me, i'm have no regrets with my
choice of decisions.  it was scary to make these decisions and i believe
that each person has to choose the treatment that is best for them.
there is no one answer to fit all problems.

when i got told i had prostate cancer, i ask the doctor, "how long will
i live if i watch it grow?"   his response was, "you will not see your
first social security check and the last three years will be in pain"  

i knew he was right.

i turned 60 a few months back and am planning on what to do for my 70th
birthday party.

oh, before my surgery, i timed it and it was taking me between 2 to 3
minutes to empty my bladder.  now, it takes less than 15 seconds if i
have a full bladder.

i'm a vietnam vet - agent orange positive - so that could be why i had
the prostate cancer so young.  (30 years younger than the age my father
developed it)

peace to all,

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Pete - 03 Jan 2006 21:56 GMT
> my BPH was so bad, that the prostate was over 2 1/2 times it's size
> and had enlarged and pushed it's way into the floor of the bladder.
> the ultra sound testing showed that i was retaining 50 ml of urine
> each time.

Palmer...is this a typo.  50ml is not much (only about 1-2/3 ounces)...Pete

> my flow kept getting worse and i was thinking it was the BPH that was
> causing it.
>
> my nightly trips to the bathroom were getting more frequent, so i
> thought it all just went hand in hand with BPH.
c palmer - 03 Jan 2006 22:36 GMT
From: pete@nospam.net (Pete)

my BPH was so bad, that the prostate was over 2 1/2 times it's size and
had enlarged and pushed it's way into the floor of the bladder. the
ultra sound testing showed that i was retaining 50 ml of urine each
time.

Palmer...is this a typo. 50ml is not much (only about 1-2/3
ounces)...Pete

=========
hi pete - you're right on the numbers.  i thought that is what they
said, but it's been a time factor since i've been through that testing.
i did remember asking how bad  does it get and was told that they have
seen men hold back as much as 200ml?  maybe it was cc's?.  all i do know
is that i was about 1/4th as bad as it could have gotten.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Stocks06 - 04 Jan 2006 00:50 GMT
One thing I'd like to add to this discussion is that one's Gleason
score is very important in determining the course of treatment for
prostate cancer.  You can have a low PSA and a high Gleason score,
which means you have an aggressive cancer.  This would indicate the
need for immediate and aggressive treatment, as opposed to "watchful
waiting" for a more non-aggressive cancer.
Pete - 04 Jan 2006 01:33 GMT
> From: pete@nospam.net (Pete)
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> all i do know is that i was about 1/4th as bad as it could have
> gotten.

Hi again Curtis...Just thought I'd let you know cc's and ml's are the same
volume, and some people with bad retention problems hold back much more than
200 ml (e.g. 500 ml or more).  It's been referred to in this ng before.
Take care...Pete

> ~ curtis
>
> knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is
> optional "Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing
> old is invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
> http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc 
c palmer - 04 Jan 2006 02:35 GMT
hi pete - you're right on the numbers. i thought that is what they said,
but it's been a time factor since i've been through that testing. i did
remember asking how bad does it get and was told that they have seen men
hold back as much as 200ml? maybe it was cc's?. all i do know is that i
was about 1/4th as bad as it could have gotten.

Hi again Curtis...Just thought I'd let you know cc's and ml's are the
same volume, and some people with bad retention problems hold back much
more than 200 ml (e.g. 500 ml or more). It's been referred to in this ng
before. Take care...Pete
==================

hi pete - again, you are right on the ml = cc

but when one considers that the average bladder holds about 300 to
350cc,  50 cc is held back.......  that's 1/6th to 1/7th of the total
and means not only a quicker trip to the bathroom, but i was told that
it increased my chances for UTI's.

now, there may be something to that because when i had my biopsy, the
doctor that did the ultra-sound, said that my prostate had a lot of
prostate stones in it.

he said that prostate stones are caused from previous prostate
infections.

also, right now, i just had a scrotal ultra-sound and told of the
results - that i have multiple hydrocels and cysts on the testis - just
want i didn't want to hear.  plus,  the ultra-sound showed that i had
debris in one hydrocel from past UTI's and what gets me is that i didn't
know that i had any UTI's at all except for acute prostatitis that
landed me in the ER back in 1991.  and the only cure for the hydrocels
and cysts is surgery.  again, something that i'm not looking forward to.

before 2003, the only time i ever went to the hospital was to visit
someone.  then, that year i was told that i had to two     potential
fatal cancers and had 5 surgeries that year alone.

as i go down the bumpy road here, i'm learning more and more, and if i
can pass it along for others, then i feel that i'm helping.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Derek F - 04 Jan 2006 17:00 GMT
So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said"  After
studying you should have know enough to understand what they were telling
you for you to ask them sensible questions. If you have retention of up to
100ml soon after a PVP that is regarded as insignificant. If they had seen
my father in law they would have been amazed as he was found to be retaining
nearly 2 Litres.
Derek.
> hi pete - you're right on the numbers. i thought that is what they said,
> but it's been a time factor since i've been through that testing. i did
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
> http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Pete - 04 Jan 2006 23:38 GMT
> So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said" After
> studying you should have know enough to understand what they
> were telling you for you to ask them sensible questions. If you have
> retention of up to 100ml soon after a PVP that is regarded as
> insignificant. If they had seen my father in law they would have been
> amazed as he was found to be retaining nearly 2 Litres.

Derek...that is quite incredible (almost 68 ounces).  I have heard and read
of large volumes before, but that must be close to the record.  Is your
father in law a big man.  I don't see how he held it so long - must have
been painful at best - and its a wonder his bladder didn't burst...Pete
Derek F - 05 Jan 2006 10:40 GMT
>> So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said" After
>> studying you should have know enough to understand what they
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> have been painful at best - and its a wonder his bladder didn't
> burst...Pete
No my father in law was of average size. He was in his 80's at the time and
lived a long distance away. We had commented when we went to see him that
his tummy looked rather big. He said that he had been told to eat Bran for
his constipation and that it was causing gas and making him bloated.   Soon
after he had a fall and passed blood in his urine and was taken to hospital.
They then found that he had retention and fitted a catheter. He had a huge
prostate that had been causing the retention. Because of his age and health
problems they did not want to do a TURP so they fitted a stent. He then went
to live in a retirement home, the stent only helped for a while as it became
clogged up. They had to remove the stent and catheterise him.
Derek.
Pete - 05 Jan 2006 17:52 GMT
>>> So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said"
>>> After studying you should have know enough to understand what they
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> became clogged up. They had to remove the stent and catheterise him.
> Derek.

Derek...wasn't he in pain from having his bladder retaining so much (ie if
you thought his tummy was too big, wasn't he complaining of having a strong
urge to pee).  Also please explain more how the stent was implemented (for
lack of a better word right now) - ie was it placed after the external
sphincter - flexible versus rigid and how large diameter, etc.  I'm not
familiar with this versus the catheter.  I did a quick google but need to
check more...Pete
Derek F - 09 Jan 2006 23:29 GMT
>>>> So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said"
>>>> After studying you should have know enough to understand what they
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> familiar with this versus the catheter.  I did a quick google but need to
> check more...Pete

Pete, he did not seem to be in pain and evidently did not realise that he
had retention as he always passed something.  You need Dr Sancha to explain
stents. I googled "prostate stents" and many refferences came up. This is
taken from one:
a.. Prostate stent - A prostate stent is a tubular device inserted through
the urethra to the point of constriction, where it is allowed to expand. The
pressure exerted by the stent on the inside wall of the urethra widens its
bore and reduces the obstruction to urinary flow. However, an increased
urgency to urinate may be experienced in the first few days following
insertion of the device.

a.. Balloon urethroplasty - A tube with a small balloon at the end is
inserted through the urethral opening of the penis and guided to the
constricted portion of the urethra, where the balloon is inflated. The
pressure exerted by the balloon against the inside of the urethral wall
increases the diameter of the urethra and improves the flow of urine.
The procedure is a safe alternative to surgery, although the recurrence rate
of BPH following this procedure is not yet established. However, almost 60
percent of individuals treated with balloon urethroplasty have experienced
an improvement in the symptoms of BPH.

Derek.
fgomsan@gmail.com - 05 Jan 2006 00:23 GMT
Dear All,

I agree that one has to read internet postings and all medical
information on the internet with care, it is full of inaccuracies and
interpreting this information is also difficult. Many times information
is simplified for the sake of better understanding, or written by
medical writers that are not specialists... that was good advice by
Pete.

The posting that started this thread is incorrect in many of it's
points. C. Palmer already dissected the text.

We say in Spain, "he can hear the bells, but he does not know where the
sound comes from" to express that there is some truth in what he says,
but he is not accurate nor correct in many of the points he defended in
his posting.

Prostate cancer is a very difficult to study disease. Average survival
without treatment is relatively long in comparison with other tumors
that kill in a period of months despite oncological treatments
(survival without treatment seems to be longer the lower the Gleason
grade is). So, in order to study this disease, studies must recruit
many patients, and these studies must follow up patients for a very
long time (more than 10-15 years). Even then, it is difficult to
compare the results of different studies, or to arrive to conclusions
that can be extrapolated to the general population. I will tell you a
little story so you can understand this.

"A study was carried out to determine if a drug was useful for erectile
dysfunction (ED). The study had two groups of 10 patients. A placebo
was fiven to Group A, whereas group B received the drug which promised
to be effective for ED. After several trials of the drug during a week,
all patients of Group A were not satisfied, they were not able to
sustain intercourse, and their counterparts were not satisfied either.
On the contrary, all patients in Group B were fully satisfied with the
drug, they were able to sustain intercourse, and counterparts were very
happy and surprised of the effect of this drug. In conclusion: Placebo
0% efficacy, Wonder drug 100% efficacy. This seemingly impressive
results are less impressive when you read the small letter in the
materials and methods section of the article. In group A, of patients
receiving placebo, all male subjects were older than 80 years, and
female counterparts were younger than 25. In group B, of patients
receiving the wonder drug, all male subjects were 25 years old, and
female counterparts were older than 70......

This relatively funny story reveals a fact in medicine. Often one can
arrive to conclusions that are not correct. And specially in prostate
cancer, with such a long survival, it is very difficult to arrive to
evidence enough to arrive to conclusions that are considered certain or
the truth.

So, doctors have to interpret the medical literature the best they can
and try to offer their patients the advice they believe works in their
best interest.

Regarding finasteride, I think the erectile dysfunction rate is much
lower than what he mentions, and it is usually a reversible effect when
you stop taking it.

Regarding PSA testing, this is an ongoing discussion. Many patients
with a high PSA suffer several sets of biopsies without a diagnosis of
cancer, some of them experience complications after the biopsies. They
become anxious about it and sometimes wished they never had had a PSA
test. Only about 2 out of 10 biopsies is positive nowadays. This means
that 8 out of 10 patients receive an "unnecessary biopsy". An this
happens because PSA level can rise due to BPH (the higher the volume of
the prostate, the higher the PSA level), or to chronic or acute
inflammation (acute prostatitis can rise PSA up to 40 ng/mL, and when
the inflammation subsides, it drops down to normal levels). So it is
not such a perfect tumor marker. e.g. a rise in PSA does not always
equal prostate cancer. (I recommend my patients to have a biopsy if PSA
is higher than 4 ng/mL, and sometimes with a lower PSA if there have
been consecutive rises or if there is family history of prostate
cancer)

On the other side, those patients with a positive biopsy can harbour a
lethal cancer, and this cancers can be cured. A recently published
study carried out in scandinavia has demonstrated that radical
prostatectomy offers a survival advantage, freedom from metastasis and
other benefits to patients after a follow up of 8 years. This study was
carefully designed and compared Radical Prostatectomy versus Watchful
Waiting.

The old autopsy data (the incidence of cancer in autopsies was higher
than the incidence of clinical cancers, apart from other difficult to
explain facts, as a 5% incidence of Gleason 7 cancer in 30 year old men
in autopsy - if I remember correctly this figure) made urologists think
that there are cancers that would probably never progress and end up
killing a patient ("the cats"), and other cancers that are aggressive
and potentially lethal ("the tigers"). Unfortunately, Pathologists
cannot differenciate cats from tigers yet. (There have been very
interesting recent autopsy studies that show that the incidence of
cancer in autopsies is much lower nowadays, due to the widespread use
of PSA, most cancers have been already detected and treated- so the
data our "physician" presents is no longer accurate).

So it is likely that some men with a high PSA, with a cancer in their
biopsy, will receive an operation that would not have been necessary.
For some others, radical prostatectomy or other treatments with
curative intent will be their only chance of long term survival.

So we keep discussing if PSA testing should be offered to every man
after a certain age, because if we do this, we will detect more "cat
type" cancers, and these men will receive "unnecessary treatments". The
urological community is divided, some urologists believe we treat too
many cancers, and some others think that cancer should be screened in
every men... and we do not know for sure what is the right thing to do
yet. We know both attitudes (to screen or not to screen) would cause
damage to patients - too many "unnecesary biopsies" - or too many
cancer deaths that could have been prevented, but we cannot say for
sure what option is the best.

It is usually difficult to tell a patient with a cancer that he does
not need treatment, or that his cancer might not kill him and that you
recommend not to treat... so diagnosis has usually been followed by
treatment in most of the cases. Now a new option is being proposed,
specially in the UK, "active surveillance with an intention to cure".
Once the cancer has been diagnosed, specially in older patients, PSA is
followed up, and biopsies repeated yearly, and treatment is offered
only if PSA rises progressively or repeat biopsies show a bigger or
higher grade cancer....

So, this is a field where we do not have certainty on how to proceed in
many cases, and there are conflicting points of view, and data from
studies supporting opposite attitudes.

When you see a patient dying from prostate cancer, with bone mets and
needing pain treatments, you hope that cancer had been detected and
cured before it was too late. Morbidity of surgery, radiotherapy,
brachytherapy and cryosurgery is an issue, but it is not as bad as our
"physician" was mentioning.

I am sure he believes what he wrote in his post, but I am not so sure
there is evidence to support his firm beliefs.

Another interesting fact. I heard at the last AUA meeting that a
patient with a higher than 4 ng/mL PSA went to see a urologist. He said
he would not recommend a biopsy, but to repeat it in 6 months to see
what happened. The patient was not satisfied with this and he went to
see another urologist who recommended a biopsy. The biopsy detected a
tumor, and the patient went to court and the original doctor was
sued...

So I guess prostate cancer is a difficult issue, and there are no easy
answers.... I know of a number of urologists with prostate cancer that
go for a radical prostatectomy, or radiotherapy.... I also know of
urologists that choose not to have a PSA.....

All the best to all of you, did I wish you a very happy new year?

Fernando Gómez Sancha
http://drgomezsancha.blogspot.com
Pete - 05 Jan 2006 01:07 GMT
Dr. Sancha...thank you once again for your extremely detailed and
informative response.  You are awesome, and it is greatly appreciated.  I
have some questions about the kidneys producing different amounts of urine
at different times of the day and the possible causes and my theories, as
they may apply to me.  Is it okay to post it as a question for you.  It may
give me some peace of mind, due to all the damn problems I have mentioned in
the past.  I would never ask you for a diagnoses, just your opinion on cause
and effect.  Once again I really appreciate the time and effort you put into
the group...Pete
Rich256 - 05 Jan 2006 01:37 GMT
> Dr. Sancha...thank you once again for your extremely detailed and
> informative response.  You are awesome, and it is greatly appreciated.  I
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and effect.  Once again I really appreciate the time and effort you put into
> the group...Pete

I am certain that all of us sitting on the sidelines feel the same sense of
gratitude for the information.  Everone here is searching for an answer.

I must add if they ever do that  erectile dysfunction test again I sure
would like to volenteer as a Group A subject :-)
fgomsan@gmail.com - 05 Jan 2006 07:56 GMT
Pete, go ahead with your questions and theories on kidneys production
of urine. I will try to help.

Fernando Gómez Sancha
http://drgomezsancha2.blogspot.com
Pete - 05 Jan 2006 16:55 GMT
> Pete, go ahead with your questions and theories on kidneys production
> of urine. I will try to help.

Thank you so much.  It will be coming...Pete

> Fernando Gómez Sancha
> http://drgomezsancha2.blogspot.com 
Derek F - 05 Jan 2006 10:45 GMT
Dear All,

"A study was carried out to determine if a drug was useful for erectile
dysfunction (ED). The study had two groups of 10 patients. A placebo
was fiven to Group A, whereas group B received the drug which promised
to be effective for ED. After several trials of the drug during a week,
all patients of Group A were not satisfied, they were not able to
sustain intercourse, and their counterparts were not satisfied either.
On the contrary, all patients in Group B were fully satisfied with the
drug, they were able to sustain intercourse, and counterparts were very
happy and surprised of the effect of this drug. In conclusion: Placebo
0% efficacy, Wonder drug 100% efficacy. This seemingly impressive
results are less impressive when you read the small letter in the
materials and methods section of the article. In group A, of patients
receiving placebo, all male subjects were older than 80 years, and
female counterparts were younger than 25. In group B, of patients
receiving the wonder drug, all male subjects were 25 years old, and
female counterparts were older than 70......

Fernando Gómez Sancha
http://drgomezsancha.blogspot.com
Snipped.
Please, Please, can I join the next Group A trial?
Derek.
c palmer - 05 Jan 2006 07:13 GMT
From: lordpilrig@NOXbtinternet.com (Derek F)
So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said" After
studying you should have know enough to understand what they were
telling you for you to ask them sensible questions. If you have
retention of up to 100ml soon after a PVP that is regarded as
insignificant. If they had seen my father in law they would have been
amazed as he was found to be retaining nearly 2 Litres.
Derek.
==============

hi derek - i agree that 2 liters is a lot, but i will pass this on.
i've never seen it but one time.  i have a friend who is in his 60's and
has advanced diabetes.  he says that it starts at the feet and works
it's way up the legs - nerve wise.   he's lost at least three toes so
far that i know of.

but he says that he doesn't have much feeling in the pelvic area.

well, putting this to the test.  i drove about 4500 miles on a trip with
him and his wife.  
this was about 2 years before my RP and my BPH was kicking in pretty
good.  we were hitting the rest stops fairly often.  

my friend was sitting in the back seat and wouldn't get out to use the
restroom.  he would just laugh about how the two women and myself had to
go all the time.  after about 8 hours on the road (and he was drinking
liquids) when he did get out of the car for the first time, he went into
the stall and stood there for about 4 - 5 minutes 'draining'  all i
heard from the sound of the flow and it didn't sound restricted.  

i did ask him about how he can hold it for so long and he said that he
could have held it longer, since he can't tell when he needs to go.  i
ask him how big is his bladder because he only weighed about 200 lbs.
he told me that he never measured it but it was a lot.  that he will
stand there for at least 5 minutes if not longer - going.

so, i found out that there are men with big bladders out there, but i'm
not one of them.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Derek F - 05 Jan 2006 11:02 GMT
From: lordpilrig@NOXbtinternet.com (Derek F)
So much for your studies "If you thought that was what they said" After
studying you should have know enough to understand what they were
telling you for you to ask them sensible questions. If you have
retention of up to 100ml soon after a PVP that is regarded as
insignificant. If they had seen my father in law they would have been
amazed as he was found to be retaining nearly 2 Litres.
Derek.
==============

hi derek - i agree that 2 liters is a lot, but i will pass this on.
i've never seen it but one time.  i have a friend who is in his 60's and
has advanced diabetes.  he says that it starts at the feet and works
it's way up the legs - nerve wise.   he's lost at least three toes so
far that i know of.

but he says that he doesn't have much feeling in the pelvic area.

well, putting this to the test.  i drove about 4500 miles on a trip with
him and his wife.
this was about 2 years before my RP and my BPH was kicking in pretty
good.  we were hitting the rest stops fairly often.

my friend was sitting in the back seat and wouldn't get out to use the
restroom.  he would just laugh about how the two women and myself had to
go all the time.  after about 8 hours on the road (and he was drinking
liquids) when he did get out of the car for the first time, he went into
the stall and stood there for about 4 - 5 minutes 'draining'  all i
heard from the sound of the flow and it didn't sound restricted.

i did ask him about how he can hold it for so long and he said that he
could have held it longer, since he can't tell when he needs to go.  i
ask him how big is his bladder because he only weighed about 200 lbs.
he told me that he never measured it but it was a lot.  that he will
stand there for at least 5 minutes if not longer - going.

so, i found out that there are men with big bladders out there, but i'm
not one of them.

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
Prior to my PVP in July I would need to urinate every two hours or so. I
would only pass about 200ml and had 300/400ml retention. If I now urinate at
convenient times, before going out or returning home, I will pass about
250/300mls. If I go when I start to need I will pass 350/450mls. I have on
ocasion been surpised that I have gone a long as nine hours between visits.
Derek.
Derek F - 04 Jan 2006 16:43 GMT
>I am a physician who was the medical director of one the largest
> erectile dysfunction/sexual dysfunction clinics in the world.  Many of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> problems.  If the prostate is normal only if that PSA goes from below
> 10 to well over 10 do you need to have a biopsy.

Snipped,
A British rugby player who recently wrote of his prostate cancer treatment
reckoned that for him PSA came to mean Permanent State of Anxiety.
Derek.
 
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.