Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate BPH / January 2006
Erectile difficulties from dutesteride and finesteride
|
|
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.
|
|
|