Two new papers [1] [2] below.
Before my radical prostatectomy [RP] in 2004, I was warned by the surgeon that if there was lymph node involvement. the operation would be aborted. This was, in fact, the fate of his second patient of the day, who had "less serious" cancer.
Given that my RP was immediately unsuccessful, the obvious question is - did it have any value? In those days, the feeling was that it wouldn't. The second man survived that day with his sex life intact, & presumably began ADT. I wonder how he has fared?
In 2006, from a Mayo study [3]:
"The results of the present study have provided some evidence that radical prostatectomy may be of benefit to patients with Gleason score 10 PCa."
I was told that one should not expect RP to cure a Gleason score [GS] of 8-10. The literature of the time suggested that my GS=4+3 was the highest GS that offered any chance of a cure, & that I shouldn't be thinking RP if GS was higher.
Survival is a different matter. In a recent vblog post, Dr. Myers states that less cancer is always better.
Over the years, there have been studies on the interplay between the stroma & epithelium in the prostate as PCa develops. It's the epithelial cells that represent PCa. With RP, you lose all of the stromal cells, of course, but not the cancerous epithelials that have already escaped. I came to the conclusion that some nasty stuff involving stromal cells was perhaps a good reason to ditch the prostate. The barn door analogy isn't a good one.
Discussion about lethal PCa usually focuses on metastases, as though an intact prostate is no longer of significance when there are mets.
The subject of this post is whether local treatment has any value when there are already known mets. It's the ultimate question & it seems that there is benefit. I wonder how many aborted RPs there have been? Maybe it still happens?
[4] (2015 - Germany) "Local treatment appears to improve oncologic outcomes in metastatic prostate cancer patients. Nevertheless, due to the lack of high-quality evidence, its role needs to be confirmed in future prospective trials."
[5] (2015 - U.S. / Canada / Italy) "Among metastatic prostate cancer patients, the potential benefit of local treatment to the primary tumor depends greatly on tumor characteristics, and patient selection is essential to avoid either over- or undertreatment.
[6] (2016 - U.S. / Germany) "Men with mPCa at diagnosis benefit from LT in terms of OM. This is largely affected by baseline characteristics. Specifically, patients with a relatively low tumor risk and good general health status appear to benefit the most."
Which takes me back to 2002 [7]: how does local treatment affect survival when mets ultimately appear?
"Previous radical prostatectomy in patients with metastatic prostate cancer was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the risk of death (hazard ratio 0.77 ...) relative to those who did not undergo earlier prostatectomy. "
In the new papers:
[1] (2016 - Italy) "Not all patients with metastatic PCa share the same prognosis, in which selected individuals with oligometastatic PCa might benefit from local therapies. These men would harbor a biologically different disease as compared with their counterparts with widespread metastases. Local treatment would eliminate the source of tumor-promoting factors, destroy the origin of metastatic cells, and stop the self-seeding process. Moreover, decreasing tumor burden would eventually allow for an improved response to systemic therapies. Recent clinical studies support an oncologic role of surgery or radiotherapy in metastatic PCa.
[2] (2016 - U.S.) "In this large contemporary analysis, men with mPCa {metastatic prostate cancer} receiving prostate RT {external beam radiotherapy } and ADT lived substantially longer than men treated with ADT alone."
-Patrick
[1] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/273...
[2] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/273...
[3] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/169...
[4] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/249...
[5] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/252...