Nalakrats - Did You Read This Study of LTADT vs STADT

[gusgold]

My take is why risk CRPC with LTADT....Both Dr. Leibowitz and Dr. Myers try and limit ADT to 12 months...the key being throw everything at the beast..ADT3 and even chemo to get the PSA <.1 before the first off cycle.

Gus

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/281...

[BigRich]

Gus,

I could not find in the abstract how many months is LTADT and how many months is STADT.

Rich

[Hidden]

I realize that this study is of RT-adjuvant ADT, but in the broader scope of long- vs short-term ADT ...

On the one hand ... Standard of Care (SOC) ADT and its nasty SEs until it drives our cancer cells to fatal CR, PLUS 75-mg chemo hits and its far nastier SEs from chemo brain to immune system suppression, then buy a few more months with advanced desperation efforts from Xtandi to Provenge.

OTOH, there's Leibowitz's 13 months of less nasty, much more personalized, immune system-BOOSTING, patented 3-Pronged Program®, including his ADT + chemo + innocuous antiangiogenic cocktail instead of a lifetime on frigging ADT.

Maybe* most important of all is Leibowitz's CLAIM -- I want more proof first -- that his chemo protocol does not induce the debilitating or even devastating chemo brain the vast majority of SOC chemo pts struggle with for the rest of their lives.

* Or is his published track record of significant-to-outstanding cure rates (don't get too excited; by "cure" prostate oncologists mean dying of something else first) the most important factor? Much depends on each individual's remission duration, remaining cognitive power, and priorities ... BUT:

• LTADT (i.e., permanent, a la SOC) causes CR, which is always fatal.

• Ordinary chemo induces disabling chemo brain in way more than half (90% or more by some studies) of its patients, and it usually gets worse, not better, with time.

• The 95% of oncologists and cardiologists who believe in the gasoline-on-the-fire model of T treatment are not keeping up with the literature. Mainstream research has already validated and officially blessed several of Leibowitz's decades-old, innovative, successful treatment paradigms, and is getting stoked by their results with his High-T concepts, too.

I'm not one to grasp at straws anyway, and being asymptomatic so far don't plan to change that. HOWEVER, I can think of nothing have to lose with Leibowitz simply because:

1. Its benefit within those first 13 months will usually meet or exceed those of less robust SOC programs.

2. If it doesn't, a patient can always dump L and go back to SOC with no setbacks. IOW, L does no harm, and monitors the heck out of his pts to be sure they are not missing other opportunities.

3. L works with local oncologists all over the world, vetting and training them to administer his protocol. My local med onc has already agreed to comply (after all, it does use SOC drugs) until and unless L says it's time to pour gasoline (T) on my fire. (Maybe by that time U.S. RCTs will vett BAT. Stranger things have happened.)

I'm aready on Firmagon, a no-brainer with my 4-month DT and no indication yet of CR. I will decide within a few weeks whether to accept early (or even late) chemotherapy; I have a LOT of reading to do first regarding its benefits and threats.