I did hear back from Dr Kishan and he did say that even if my husband’s prostate shrunk the max expected from adt it would still be too big for brachy boost😪. And I was not happy to hear it, because I have read the good studies you’ve posted on it Tall_Allen.
Have you met with Albert Chang at UCLA? (He's the one that actually does the HDR brachy part). You can email Kishan these references (please feel free to use my name):
"Why would you do sbrt and brachytherapy?" Tall Allen
More is better?
I had IMRT & brachytherapy at Dattoli. It seems to me that SBRT is better than IMRT generally.
Though my analysis and thought process on these things is admittedly not as well refined or as well informed as yours. (I do learn a lot from your commentary)
So why "IMRT with a brachytherapy" and not "sbrt and brachytherapy"? It would seem that the only difference is that SBRT is more precise, with fewer treatments? I would think that would be better? No?
No - the results of SBRT and IMRT are comparable. The main advantage is 5 treatments vs 44 treatments. IMRT may be less toxic for treating areas outside of the prostate (it is unknown). I know Zelefsky at MSK had a trial using both, but I don't see the advantage.
There is another alternative: "Surgery/24 months ADT". In this study, 87% of the patients in the control arm treated this way were alive after ten years. 13% died overall and only 2.3% died of prostate cancer.
Personally, I just don't like getting cut. And too many opportunities for them to cut where they shouldn't and end up in diapers.
And they never seem to be honest about the incidence of leakage. Seems you have to end up with a a lot of leakage before they even acknowledge it as an adverse event.
In the study I cited, 16% of the patients had N1, i.e. local mets. So the ADT was sufficient to control these. I also think it will not make a significant difference whether you have an extended lymph node dissection or pelvic radiation.
None with strong evidence. I'm in the same boat, stage 4 with local lymph nodes only, no distant mets.
The PROTECT trial did not include men with locally advanced disease, it was limited to localized disease. But it showed no difference in mortality after 10 years for RP, RT, or active surveillance. The number of men needed to treat to prevent one case of distant metastases after 10 years was 27 for RP, 33 for RT. That means that only 3-4% of men got that benefit.
Perhaps those numbers will change for locally advanced disease, but there isn't a compelling argument for that, and I haven't seen any strong evidence.
I’m no expert . No doctor. I had stage #4 t-4 non op . Horse was out of the barn . I did 8 weeks imrt and double adt . It worked thus far for me . Follow your experts advice . I had only two lymph nodes lit up. Whatever is chosen will be the best for him.. Follow competent professional advice . Don’t hinge treatment from on line sources. Take care
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.