Day 3,260 – Research Articles on Prostate Cancer

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:

Long-term Outcome of Prostate Cancer Patients Who Exhibit Biochemical Failure Despite Salvage Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy.

Improved toxicity profile following high-dose postprostatectomy salvage radiation therapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

Long-term outcomes after high-dose postprostatectomy salvage radiation treatment.

Multimodality Imaging of Prostate Cancer.

Salvage radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy: Long-term results of urinary incontinence, toxicity and treatment outcomes

Outcomes of salvage radiotherapy for recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy.

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…

Month 107 – Looking Ahead

A little over a week ago, I hopped online around 10 p.m., checked my latest PSA results, and wrote my last blog post. None of that made for a good bedtime story.

The next day, I was exhausted from not sleeping well after receiving the news—so exhausted that I skipped out from work about an hour and a half early so I could go home and rest. Ever since then, I’ve been fine. I’ve accepted the new number and the fact that, once again, the only thing that I can control is how I react to it. In my heart, I expected the number to go up from the last test, and it did.

I did take a little time to search for some newer articles about salvage radiation therapy but they, like the PSA results, didn’t make for good bedtime reading either, so I put that on hold for now. I’ll be working on my list of questions for the doctor on 22 October, and we’ll go from there.

I’m pretty sure the writing is on the wall that that salvage radiation is in my future. It will take a while to get appointments set up for the radiation oncologist and to do any imaging that we can, and when you throw in the approaching holidays, I just don’t see radiation starting before the end of the year. I could be wrong. (Or, if things do happen quickly, I may just force the start to the beginning of the new year. Who wants to be getting zapped through the holidays? Seriously.)

In the mean time, I’m doing okay. Really. Just one appointment and test result at a time…

Day 3,248 – PSA Results

I jumped the gun and got my PSA test done about a week earlier than I planned. I had a  appointment scheduled on Monday to follow-up on my thumb surgery back in February , and I thought I would kill two birds with one stone and get the blood drawn after my appointment.

About 9:00 a.m., the doctor that I had my 1:30 p.m. appointment with called to check in and see how I was doing and if I really needed to come in. “How’s your thumb?” “Still attached and working,” I replied. After a brief discussion in more detail, we mutually agreed that there was no need for me to come into the office.

That kind of put a damper on my getting two birds with one stone, but I decided that I would go to the lab anyway, as I had already planned the afternoon off. It just made sense.

I wish I hadn’t.

My PSA took a considerable jump up to 0.16 ng/ml. I wasn’t expecting that.

PSA 20190930

The trend function on my spiffy spreadsheet thought it would come in around 0.137 ng/ml so that’s kind of where I had prepared myself to be mentally.

I used the Memorial Sloan Kettering PSA Doubling Time calculator to recalculate my PSA doubling time (it uses values of only 0.10 ng/ml and above), and my PSADT dropped from 155.6 months to 43.1 months. Still a respectable number, but definitely moving in the wrong direction.

Needless to say, this sucks.

My appointment with the urologist is on 22 October and we’ll definitely talk about imaging possibilities and ask for another referral back to a radiation oncologist to discuss salvage radiation therapy.

Crap.

Projecting risk for metastasis after radical prostatectomy — THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK

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.

via Projecting risk for metastasis after radical prostatectomy — THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK

Month 106 – Almost Time

Work is insanely busy for me right now, so this will be a shorter post than usual. (“Thank you!” you say.)

I’m coming to the end of the six months since my last PSA test (and the first six month test frequency in many years), so it’s almost time for my next visit to Dracula. I’m looking at my calendar and I’m thinking that I’ll go somewhere around 7 or 8 October, but anticipation may have me try to squeeze it in a little earlier. Perhaps even the tail end of September. Either way, I have an appointment with the urologist on 22 October to review the results.

I’m not even going to try and predict where the next marker on the chart will land. My spreadsheet failed me wonderfully last time out. As I recall, it predicted a value of around 0.14, and I came in at 0.10. One result at a time…

As a refresher here’s my PSA chart:

PSA 20190326

Last week, I stumbled across a comment in a Facebook prostate cancer support group that talked about rising PSA, and the author recommended reading/viewing Dr. Charles “Snuffy” Smith’s article, “When Recurrent PCa isn’t Cancer.” Dr. Smith is the editor-in-chief of the website, Prostapedia.

The video was published four years ago, but Dr. Smith seemed to reinforce the notion that my continued surveillance of my PSA without taking other action may not be as crazy an idea as many may think it is (including myself, on occasion). Of course, I’m sure there are plenty of others out there who would argue otherwise, too.

Even though there are a thousand opinions out there, we patients sometimes forget that we really can control our treatment path, as long as we do it in a well-researched and well-thought out way, assessing the risks and rewards. I get to decide what to do in the end. It’s my body and my life, after all.

Stay tuned.

Month 105 – Skipped PSA and Imaging News

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.

Day 3,081 – PSA Discussion with Doctor

IMG_20190418_134348455While waiting for my appointment with the doctor this afternoon, I got caught up on reading about the new Datsun 280ZX in the waiting room in the May 1981 edition of Road & Track magazine. Seriously. That thing belonged in the National Archives, not the doctor’s waiting room. Needless to say, it was a fun trip down memory lane, as I had just graduated from college three months earlier and was driving my 1974 Ford Galaxie 500 (my first car).

The discussion with the doctor went about as expected. In a nutshell: Continue to monitor; no action needed at this point given my PSA level and my PSA doubling time of 155 months. (Calculated using the Memorial Sloan-Kettering PSADT nomogram.)

She told me something new, too, concerning the explanation for some of the very minor fluctuations in PSA levels. I knew that physical activity and having orgasms before a blood draw could impact your PSA level, but she said that even variations in your hydration level can cause minor variations in your PSA readings. Interesting.

Just for grins and giggles, I asked her the $64,000 question: How do you define biochemical recurrence?

There was quite a long pregnant pause before she responded, “That’s a difficult question to answer.” She explained the that it’s been defined many ways and, while she never did answer my question directly, my impression was that she was in the “two or more consecutive increases in your PSA level” camp.

One thing the doctor said, too, was that she has seen cases where patients PSAs start increasing and then plateau and sit there for years without much change at all and no need for intervention.

She also suggested that, given where my PSA level was and how slowly it was moving, that we could retest in six months instead of sticking to the four month schedule that I’ve been using for the last three and a half years. I agreed. I return on 22 October 2019.

Again, the meeting went pretty much as I expected it would, and I’m okay with what we discussed.


I had a great trip to Switzerland in the first half of the month despite some dodgy weather (which is to be expected in northern climates in April). If you’re interested in reading about it (or at least just looking at some photos), you can check it out on my other blog, Travelin’ Dan.

Day 3,060 – PSA Results: WTF?!?

Okay. Sorry to use the vernacular, but what the f*ck?!? My PSA went down from 0.13 ng/ml to 0.10 ng/ml!

Not that I’m complaining, mind you. But, seriously, WTF?

This is great news, but when you get yourself psyched up for yet another increase (after 3.5 years of pretty steady increases), it certainly plays games with your mind when the number goes in the opposite direction in a substantial way. Did I ever mention that I hate this disease?

I can’t wait to hear what the urologist has to say about this on 18 April. It should be entertaining.

So that’s that. Go figure.

PSA 20190326

Dr. Daniel George on PSA Recurrence

This article discussing PSA recurrence showed up in my reader about the same time that I went for my PSA test, so it was pretty timely.

I’m not a subscriber to Protastatepedia, so I can’t see the full articles that they post.

https://wp.me/p4yQj7-zm

One of the things that Dr. George talks about is the PSA doubling time as an indicator to aggressiveness. Using the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center PSADT calculator, my doubling time was 35 months before this week’s reading; now it’s at 155 months.

Yes, that last reading is most likely and anomaly skewing the results. Or perhaps the 0.13 reading was the anomaly and I’ve been holding steady at the 0.10-0.11 range for a while. The next test will tell.

I like the idea of treating this as more of a chronic illness than something to go after aggressively given my numbers. We’ll have that discussion with the doctor on 18 April.


Getting on my soapbox for a second…

Prostatepedia certainly doesn’t seem to want to engage their readers. I left a comment on their blog and, when it wasn’t even moderated let alone answered, I left the same comment on their Facebook page. It’s now gone.

If you’re not going to acknowledge reader comments, Prostatepedia, why bother giving us the option to do comment in the first place?

Here’s what I wrote:

Thank you for a good overview of biochemical recurrence, but there’s one thing that you’ve omitted from the article: how biochemical recurrence is defined.

I know that for years, BCR after a radical prostatectomy was defined as hitting a PSA level of 0.2 ng/ml. But with the advent of the ultra sensitive PSA test, I’ve seen some suggest that BCR occurs with a PSA as low as 0.03 ng/ml. Others define it as three consecutive increases in PSA regardless of the value. Not having a clear and widely accepted definition is infuriating to those of us with an increasing PSA.

Cookson, et al., did a review of published articles on the topic of BCR (J Urol. 2007 Feb;177(2):540-5.). They reviewed 145 articles and found 53 different definitions of BCR. Needless to say, from a patient’s perspective, that just boggles the mind.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17222629/

I had a radical prostatectomy in January 2011, and had undetectable PSAs for 54 months when it became detectable at 0.05 ng/ml in September 2015. We’ve been testing every four months ever since, and my most recent PSA in December was 0.13 ng/ml. Using the MSK PSADT calculator, my PSADT is around 32 months.

Last May, I saw a radiation oncologist for the first time when my PSA was at 0.11 ng/ml, and he recommended starting salvage radiation therapy right away. Given my slow PSADT, I opted to continue to monitor. When I saw the urologist in December, he said that I haven’t even hit BCR yet because I hadn’t hit 0.2 ng/ml.

So on the one hand, I have one professional telling me that I have recurrence and the earlier we start SRT, the better the outcome chances are and, on the other hand, I have another professional telling me that I don’t even have recurrence yet. Frustrating.

I’m not asking for medical advice on what I should do, but I do believe that ANY discussion about biochemical recurrence includes how recurrence is defined and/or how the definition is evolving.

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Day 2,960 – Meeting with the Urologist

One thing that I’ve learned along this journey is that every doctor has his or her own take on the situation and what should be done, and very few of those opinions match. They can’t even agree on standard definitions.

This afternoon’s meeting with yet another urologist proved to be interesting at best and a tad frustrating at worst.

He was a younger doctor but the interesting thing was that he held to the belief that I haven’t had a biochemical recurrence yet and won’t until I hit the magical 0.2 ng/ml. I was a bit taken aback by that given what everyone else has been telling me for the last two years. He also talked about the newer ultra-sensitive PSA tests, but hung on to the definition that anything less than 0.1 ng/ml was “undetectable.” In his mind, my PSA at 0.13 was “very low.”

We talked at length about my PSA doubling time, and that was one area that we came to consensus on. That having a PSADT of more than two years was a good thing. He seemed quite interested in seeing the results of the Memorial Sloan Kettering PSADT calculator, which had my doubling time at 35 months (based on only four data points because their calculator accepts only those values >= 0.1 ng/ml). (I also had my PSA tracking chart printed out and sitting on his desk when he walked in.)

I asked him about what his experience was with dealing with the long-term side effects of salvage radiation therapy as a urologist—how frequently they occurred and what severity they were. He went through the list of things that I had already known, and said in his “whole career” he had seen only three or four cases that were significant. (Note: His “whole career” spanned all of six years. I’ve had cancer 8 years.)

Lastly, we talked about the Ga68 PSMA imaging trial going on at UCLA. It was clear he was aware of the research, but wasn’t at all familiar with the details or requirements of the trial. I didn’t expect him to be well-versed on the topic, but it was clear that I knew a bit more about it than he did, especially when it came to the requirements to participate, (I didn’t tell him that I had actually contacted UCLA.)

He did ask me if I had a PSA threshold in mind where I would want to take action when it comes to salvage radiation therapy. In my mind, if we get into the 0.15 or above range and the PSADT starts to shorten, I’ll have to strongly consider the next steps. But I did bring up the Freedland study that shows, with my numbers, I can do nothing and have a 94% chance of being around in 15 years.

Normally, I don’t mind seeing younger doctors because sometimes they’re more familiar with the latest research and current treatment philosophies than their older counterparts. I’ll take his input with a grain of salt considering how he’s not in line with the thinking of some of the others that I’ve seen in the last year or two.

In the end, we agreed to kick the can down the road and do another PSA test in four months in April 2019.

I’m still interested in speaking with a radiation oncologist about this again. I may try emailing the one I saw in May or just ask for another referral after the beginning of the new year.

It was a bit of an odd consult. I’ll just forge my own path forward and we’ll see where that leads. In the meantime….

Wishing you all a very Merry Christmas and the healthiest, happiest New Year possible!

—Dan

IMG_20171207_140153690
We have to improvise here in San Diego!