There has been a lot of questioning and theorizing about "de-bulking" tumors, i.e., removing a prostate even when the disease is already known to be metastatic. During my recent experience on a prostate cancer research review panel (see: "Proton beam vs. x-ray therapy") I asked panelists, one a professor of urological surgery and one a professor of radiation oncology, what they thought about that.
They both opposed it. The surgeon said she thought it would put the patient through a lot of stress and damage and provide no benefit. Neither one thought it would extend life.
Are they right? I have no way of knowing. I think their views are the same as the majority of specialists in prostate cancer but, when it comes to getting at the truth, reality is reality and it is not determined by majority vote or by personal intuition either. So I'm posting this without being able to argue one way or the other but just offering it for everyone to consider.