I don't have a "science based answer" but I may have a response of
interest to you and others on the NG.  I had PVP on Oct. 14 and the
result has been mildly but not wildly successful.  Dr. Laub requested a
total testosterone analysis which turned out to be low.  He suggested a
more thorough blood workup after a month or so.  My uro in Las Vegas
made the request and I have had blood taken for this more thorough
workup.  I see the uro in about two weeks and we will discuss the blood
results and what to do next, e.g., testosterone replacement therapy.
All of this will take time and if and when there is more to report, I
will do so.  I had a testosterone analysis about 20 years ago and I was
told it was normal at that time, although I can't tell you what the
value was.
The one in October was about 220 which is definitely low.  I have a
layman's suspicion that low testosterone and all that goes with it may
be a possible side effect of long term BPH, which is another reason for
having the condition treated as soon as reasonably possible.  With the
advent of procedures such as PVP, I would recommend that BPH sufferers
not wait too long to have the problem taken care of.  Some of us didn't
have the luxury of PVP when we were first diagnosed with BPH.  If PVP
had been available, I would not have had a TUNA and a TUIP, but I would
have gone directly to PVP.  I'm saying that even though the PVP may not
be the final answer for me.  One question everyone who is faced with a
surgical procedure for BPH should ask is "If the procedure does not work
or is only partially successful, what is the worst thing that can happen
to me?"  The answer is crucial, because the worst thing I have heard
about PVP is that the person is no worse (or better) than they were
before the procedure.  I don't think that is the case for the other
procedures.  I realize that most PVP outcomes have been good to
spectacular,
but I don't think we should tell people to expect spectacular results.

--