A recent report in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) may offer one of the best analyses of an increasing risk for diagnosis with and death from advanced forms of prostate cancer over the period from 2003 to 2017 (the last year for which we have accurate data from the SEER database). There […]The epidemiology of prostate cancer (2003-2017) — THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK
Is it just me, or is anyone else having pandemic days all blend together and you lose track of time? Late last night (technically very early this morning as I was tossing and turning in bed around 2 a.m.), I realized, “Crap! I didn’t even think about posting on my blog, let alone write anything!”
So here I am on my advertised posting day with three hours and one minute left to get this out on the 11th, and I pretty much have nothing. Well, that’s not entirely true…
I did come across this article on The “New” Prostate Cancer Infolink that talks about PSA doubling times with respect to prostate cancer progression in men with non-metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer.
Unfortunately, they weren’t able to access the full study report, and the summary that’s provided is pretty high-level, restating the obvious: Shorter PSADT is associated with shorter metastasis-free survival and shorter overall survival.
One of the things that I discovered working in a hospital is that I can sometimes access research reports like this via its computer network. I’ll see if I can access this report to learn more details about the study and, if I can, I’ll share anything I learn.
Whew! Finished with time to spare. 🙂
Stay well and keep living the pandemic life as best and as safely you can wherever you happen to be.
Wow. I just may get this post out on time this month! I tell you, this pandemic thing has really thrown me for a loop when it comes to maintaining some sort of routine. Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately), I’ve returned to working from the office every day for the last three weeks, and that’s brought some structure back to my life.
It’s hard to believe, but four months have passed since my last PSA test, and I’ll be heading off to the clinic on Tuesday morning. I hope. I haven’t actually confirmed that they’ve reopened for routine things like blood tests. If they are open and they do take the sample, I should have the results late Thursday night or Friday. My appointment to go over the results is on 2 July.
Just as a reminder, here’s my PSA roller coaster:
I’m at the point where I don’t get too worked up about these tests anymore, even with the upward trend. It is what it is and I’ll deal with the number when I get it.
Imaging Trial for Veterans in Los Angeles
The VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System is conducting a phase II trial “to determine whether a positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scan using 18F-DCFPyL affects the clinical management plan in Veterans.” Some are saying that 18F-DCFPyL may prove to be even better than a Ga-68 scan.
For patients with biochemical recurrence, they want your PSA to be at least 0.2 in a post-radical prostatectomy situation, so unless my PSA jumps up again next week, I’m not eligible. (No, I’m not wanting it to jump up.) The cost is free to veterans and only veterans are eligible. You can learn more about the trial here:
So that’s about it from a toasty 90° F / 32° C San Diego.
Wear a mask. Stay apart. Stay well!
Well, I missed last month’s post and this month’s is late. You would think that with all the quarantine time on my hands, I would have been a writing fool. Not so.
I did come across this study a while back that talks about PSA coming back after surgery and whether it’s wise to treat or watch.
My interpretation of the paper with my specific numbers kind of reinforces what the doctor told me at my last visit: that I’m okay continuing to watch my PSA for now. Others with different numbers may come to a different conclusion. We’re all unique, after all.
I’m scheduled for my next follow-up with the doctor the first week of July, so I’ll have to get my blood drawn for the PSA test in late June, assuming the COVID restrictions are lifted by then.
You may recall my last post where I talked about taking medication to lessen the nerve pain in my leg. I started the medication on 30 March 2020 and I seemed to hit the side effects jackpot. They knocked me for a loop, at least initially (hence, no writing).
Headaches, dry mouth, nausea, diarrhea, and extreme fatigue plagued me the first two weeks, but the good news was that the nerve pain was reduced a good 50% to 70%. The side effects were so troubling in the first few weeks that, by the middle of the third week, I cut the dose in half, but the nerve pain returned.
I’m back on the full dose now, and my body seems to have adapted to a degree. The fatigue is still present, the dry mouth is still there, and the nausea is very mild and only early in the morning. (No, I’m not pregnant.) The pendulum swung in the complete opposite direction on my GI system–constipation is now the norm. Sorry. I’m oversharing once again.
We did discuss physical therapy as part of my treatment plan, but that was just as COVID was rearing its head, so that’s been put on hold for now.
I had been fortunate enough to be able to work from home since 16 March because of COVID-19, but I’ve returned to work in the office at the hospital beginning last week.
On the whole, I’m pretty comfortable being in the office again. Sure, there’s a more risk than just sitting at home, but my office is well away from a high-traffic area of the hospital and I’m literally the only person here. I don’t have to go into any of the wards, and the walk from my office to the exit is relatively short. I probably feel more at risk in the grocery store.
California was one of the first states to impose a stay-at-home order and we’re being very cautious and deliberate in our re-opening. Some will say that we’re being too slow, but not me. Our efforts really did make an impact on controlling the virus. We’ve got nearly 40 million people in the state and we have just over 80,000 positive cases and 3,240 deaths. Contrast that with New York state with 19.5 million residents with over 351,000 positive cases and 28,339 deaths.
No matter how you slice it, though, it’s universally tragic. We’re all anxious to get this under control and behind us.
I stumbled across this page/video, PSMA PET/CT- Struggling with Increased Sensitivity, of a presentation about bringing Ga 68 PSMA PET/CT imaging online from the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) Annual Meeting. It’s definitely worth the 23 minutes to watch it if you have any interest in imaging for prostate cancer.
Ga 68 PSMA PET/CT scans definitely can see much more than current imaging technologies and is fast becoming the new “gold standard” of prostate cancer imaging. But, as with anything new, there are things we have to understand to use the technology to its full advantage and to not misinterpret what it’s telling us.
One of the statements in the presentation that struck me was, “Just because you can see it, doesn’t mean you should treat it.” The presenter described the following scenario:
“So this is a patient who’s eight years after a prostatectomy with rising PSA and when the gallium PSMA PET scan is done, we see focal intense uptake in a solitary mesorectal node, which measures two to three millimeters and we’re really seeing micro metastatic disease. And I think the title of the slide is just because you can see it, doesn’t mean you should treat it because we don’t know how long that lymph nodes been there for. This is not in the classical nodal dissection. This lymph node could have been there five years ago and maybe it hasn’t changed and we don’t know that. So it’s easy now to say let’s cut it out because we can see it or let’s give it stereotactic radiotherapy, but I look at an image like this and think if it’s taken eight years for this lymph node to get to two to three millimeters, this is extremely indolent disease and perhaps it’s best left alone.”
He also talked about early interventions taken as a result of the PSMA PET/CT scans that may have caused more problems for the patient than necessary without changing the outcome (i.e., continued recurrence after the procedure).
Again, I found this to be very enlightening as I’m heading into my appointment this week and considering going to UCLA for their PSMA trial.
One of the cool things about working in a hospital is that I can access full versions of some of the scholarly articles on prostate cancer that are normally blocked to the public by their publishers. At the end of the day today, I pulled the full versions of each of these articles for a little light bedtime reading about salvage radiation therapy, toxicities, and imaging:
I skimmed a couple of them on the bus ride home this evening (as much as you can skim on a bouncing bus), and I’ll go through each in a little more detail before my appointment a week from tomorrow.
When I pull articles like this, I consider a few things when reading them:
- When was the article published? Obviously, more recent is generally better, although you can’t discount data from earlier studies entirely.
- What type of research was done? Was it a retrospective study of historical medical records or was it a full-blown trial?
- How many patients were included in the study? Fewer patients (<100) may yield less reliable results than those that include several thousand.
- Over what time period did the study look at patients? Studies that looked at records from the 1990’s into the early 2000’s will reflect the treatment options and technologies available at that time. Studies done more recently will reflect the impact of newer treatment options and technologies.
- Who conducted or funded the study? Who’s conducting a study and how it’s paid for could, in theory, perhaps skew the results (e.g., Big Pharma wanting to push a new drug).
So I’ll be going through each article, gleaning whatever I think may be of value for the appointment, adding to my list of questions to be asked.
Please don’t ask me to share the full versions of the articles here or elsewhere. Not only am I cancer-averse, I’m litigation averse. I’m not keen on a copyright infringement lawsuit because I posted something on this blog/website that I didn’t have permission to do. 🙂
That said, I may try to summarize some of the findings in future posts, with full attribution of any quotes, of course.
Off to read a bedtime story or two…
I came across this article in one of my feeds. There isn’t an “Ah-ha!” moment in it, but it’s good to see research confirming what many have known with data.
A new paper in Clinical Genitourinary Cancer has provided us with some more detailed information about risk for metastasis in men with recurrent prostate cancer after first-line surgery.
Here’s an interesting trial with surprising results.
Data from a recently published, Canadian, clinical trial of high-dose vitamin D as a method to strengthen bones in healthy adults who do not have osteoporosis have had significant and unexpectedly negative results.
Last week was a little weird for me. If I had kept to my four-month PSA testing cycle instead of the new, agreed upon six month cycle, I would have gone to the clinic and had Dracula siphon off another vial of blood. But I didn’t, and it felt pretty comfortable with that. Still, a little voice in my head wondered what my current PSA level is, but in a non-panicky kind of way. More in just a plot-the-next-data-point-on-my-chart kind of way.
I’ll go for the PSA test in late September or early October. My schedule that time of year is a bit crazy, so I need to carve out a date and time and get it on my calendar.
It’s hard to believe, too, that in a few weeks it will be four years since my PSA became detectable again. With a calculated PSA doubling time of over 150 months, I’ve been pretty comfortable taking the surveillance approach that I have for as long as I have. There are moments, however, where I do ask myself if I’m taking too great a risk by using that approach. Those thoughts have popped into my head a little more frequently since my hallway consult with the radiation oncologist a few weeks ago.
Maybe the test results in October will give me more clarity and a better sense of direction; maybe they won’t.
In other news, I saw the recent article comparing the effectiveness of the 18F-fluciclovine (Axumin) imaging against that of the 68Ga PSMA imaging. The study used 50 patients with PSAs ranging from 0.2 to 2.0.
The PSMA imaging is proving itself to be more effective at detecting the locations of recurrent cancer but the kicker is that it’s not yet an FDA approved imaging technology.
Still, it’s good to see that progress is being made in the research for those of us who would really like to know that we’re going to be zapping where the cancer is rather than somewhat randomly based on statistics. I’m sure there will be more to come.
Last month I talked about turning a corner in my outlook on my current situation, and boy, I must have fish-tailed around that corner—fast—because cancer has been the furthest thing from my mind pretty much the entire month. Work had a lot to do with that, too.
I’m the volunteer manager for a nonprofit, and we had one weekend last month with five events going on all on the same day at five different locations, and I had to provide 160 volunteers in one day to cover them all. Plus, we had three other events later in the month that needed another 80 volunteers between them. Needless to say, my attention was on getting each of those events fully staffed, and thoughts of cancer fell by the wayside. That’s good.
One unintended side effect from all this is that I really haven’t been keeping up on the advances in the imaging technologies and latest research on treatment of recurrent prostate cancer like I once did. It’s actually been a refreshing break, but I want to get back into researching again so that I have the most current information available when I go for my next PSA test in October.
The cool thing this time around, though, is that I’ll be doing this research from the perspective of educating myself at a leisurely pace rather than one of being constantly glued to cancer websites in sheer panic because my PSA was rising. That’s turning a corner.
My next post on 4 July 2019 should be a little more substantial. It will be my semi-annual Life After Radical Prostatectomy: 102 Months Later post with more detailed updates about how I’m doing eight and a half years after the surgery.