I was chagrinned to read a post here the other day by a patient advocating less use of advanced hormonal therapies. He cited Rahul Aggarwal's study of treatment-emergent small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer (t-SCNC). Since I know and respect Dr. Aggarwal, I reached out to him and told him what that ill-informed patient was advocating. Here's what he replied:
"Although long term androgen deprivation therapy may be associated with the development of treatment-emergent small cell neuroendocrine prostate cancer (t-SCNC) in a minority of patients, multiple studies have confirmed the long-term benefit of abiraterone and enzalutamide for prostate cancer patients in various disease settings. Use of these agents should not be limited by concern for the subsequent development of t-SCNC.”
• His study does not prove that those meds cause t-SCNC, but only shows an association in heavily pre-treated men with mCRPC. This is an important distinction. (It's like observing that many men with high PSA have prostate cancer (an association) and erroneously concluding that high PSA causes prostate cancer.)
• t-SCNC may simply be part of the natural course of advanced PC, and may occur whatever treatments are used. The hormone therapies may only be selecting for the resistant cancer that survives their use. The resistant cancer may always have been there.
• Zytiga and Xtandi have been proven to add years of life in the mHSPC setting in some men, and months in the mCRPC setting, so avoiding those medicines will reduce expected survival.
• A recent study at Johns Hopkins showed that the t-SCNC subtype is less virulent than de novo SCNC onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...
Remember, stuff on this forum (from me or anyone else) is not medical advice. Many patients post research that they do not really understand, and often misinterpret. They may be good topics for discussion with one's oncologist, but they should never be taken as sufficient reason to alter therapies. There is a lot of good information shared here too. I wish that I had more time to critique all the misinformation on this site, but there aren't enough hours in the day - I only manage to read what lands in my inbox and ignore much of the low-level research posted on this site.