Here is a very interesting and perhaps controversial article about shifting how we approach the treatment of prostate cancer:
I came across this interesting abstract of a study in Germany that suggests defining biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy at the 0.1 ng/ml level instead of the widely accepted 0.2 ng/ml.
The vast majority of patients with PSA ≥0.1 ng/ml after RP will progress to PSA ≥0.2 ng/ml. Additionally, early administration of SRT at post-RP PSA level <0.2 ng/ml might improve freedom from progression. Consequently, we suggest a PSA threshold of 0.1 ng/ml to define biochemical recurrence after RP.
You can read the full abstract here.
Of course, with my latest PSA at 0.08 ng/ml, that’s far closer to 0.1 than 0.2. I know it’s just one study, so I’m not going to get worked up over it for now. Something else to talk with the doctor about in September (gotta keep ’em on their toes!).
An excellent article about PSA and being able to determine the aggressiveness of prostate cancer.
I came across this interesting article late tonight talking about how, if your post-treatment PSA nadir after RT or ADT is greater than 0.5 ng/ml, you’re more likely to have the prostate cancer return.
I’m going to re-read this with a fresh set of eyes tomorrow to better understand the study and its details.
It’s funny that just 24 hours after having a discussion with my doctor about this very topic, this article appears on one of my social media news feeds.
My medical team seems reluctant to embrace some of the newer studies like this, sticking to the 0.2 ng/ml definition of biochemical recurrence that’s been the standard for years and years. That makes me wonder how long it takes before the medical community accepts the newer data and studies, and shifts treatment regimens to the new guidance.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not ready to hop on a table and get radiated just because of this paper (or the two others earlier in the year along the same lines), but it is something that I’ll be keeping an eye on going forward.
More than anything at this point, I’m just sharing an observation of how the medical research community and the medical community at large can sometimes be at odds with each other, knowing how conflicting and confusing it can be from a patient’s perspective. It just reinforces my belief that you have to do your own research, be your own advocate, and make decisions that YOU are comfortable with based on what you’ve learned.
For men who have had prostate cancer surgery, radiation therapy at the first sign of a rising PSA level can reduce the chances of the cancer recurring.
I came across this article on BBC and found it to be an interesting development in yet another potential treatment option. It will be interesting to see how future trials pan out.
Prostate cancer laser treatment ‘truly transformative’ – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38304076
Here’s an interesting development in the field of prostate cancer research. The headline is a bit sensationalistic, but the researchers seem to be seeing “unexpected” and “exciting” results.
Professor Sam Denmeade, from Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, US, who led the study, said: “”Our goal is to shock the cancer cells by exposing them rapidly to very high followed by very low levels of testosterone in the blood. The results are unexpected and exciting.
Update: 3 December 2016
Here’s the link to the abstract highlighting the preliminary results:
An interesting read.
‘Active Monitoring’ of Prostate Cancer Does Not Increase Death Rate http://nyti.ms/2cOuSiL
This will be a short post this month—my brain has been prostate cancer-ed out after the last few months and needs a respite for a few weeks before I buckle in for the roller coaster ride that is the next PSA test.
Speaking of the next PSA test, I’m planning on going in for the blood draw right around 1-3 August 2016. We’ll have to see how my schedule looks that week.
My urologist has authorized me to get the blood draw as of 1 July, so I could go in tomorrow if I really wanted to, but I’m going to do my best to stick to the first week of August to preserve the even spacing of the last three tests—pretty close to exactly four months apart ( 3 December–6 April; 6 April–3 August).
If I lose my willpower and go early, I’ll let you know.
This week also offered up some major news on the prostate cancer front with a shift towards genetic testing to help determine how to best treat prostate cancer. You can read more about it in this Washington Post article, Leading researchers recommend major change in prostate cancer treatment.
Action needed to support prostate cancer research funding (again) – http://wp.me/pdkiw-65P