This was among 3,649 women with breast cancer.
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...
But taken together with all the randomized clinical trials so far among men with prostate cancer, it does increase our skepticism. Here are the RCTs so far for prostate cancer:
prostatecancer.news/2019/11...
It also shows why observational data from retrospective studies should never be used to dictate drug treatment decisions.
Good news fir us metformin users is it didn’t seem to decrease survival lol.
Schwah
The 10% increase in deaths in those taking metformin was not statistically significant.
There were, however, statistically significant increases in serious (Grade 3) toxicities among those taking metformin vs placebo: 21.5% vs 17.5%, respectively. If one needs it to control blood glucose, there is reason to take it. Otherwise, not.
Ohhhhhh darn.
True that TA. Also "anecdotal stories" should not be a basis either, like a famous Dr. back east used to tout. Thanks for the study info.WOE, still in remission at 9.5 years, with 7 yrs on Zytiga
7 years on Zytiga! That's very good news. Has it been continuous therapy or intermittent? With Lupron?I'm on Xtandi/Lupron for 1.5 years now...
Pretty much continuous, on Lupron continuously from 2012 to 2016, now on a well deserved Lupron Vacation.
So you are on continuous Zytiga and intermittent Lupron?
I was on 2000 mg of metformin for 10 years before dx....didnt stop me from getting this sh☘️t
I dont like that you got this sh☘️t. But I appreciate your comment. I know your history its good you were in a scientific trial for treatment and not treated by you tube.
Times have changed.....readers digest/ popular mech......replaced by you tube....
For tips on steel machining work to help with the printing parts business I have and fixing cars its been good....otherwise has sucked a lot of people deep into rabbit holes ?
Those popular mech mags are good memories. I used to drool over the mini bike and motorcycle ads ha.
Thanks Allen, I actually got off it last due to bad gastro issues
I never saw anything that would convince me metformin would help. So when I was diagnosed type 2 I turned down metformin and opted to try diet control. It is working very well to reduce glucose and don't have to deal with additional side effects from another medication
Despite whether or not it has any effect on cancer it’s still helps prevent metabolic syndrome from ADT. I’ll continue to take it just like I have for the past 8 years per Snuffy Myers, I’ve been able to maintain normal BMI, and I’m still around to respond to posts, lol. Like all my docs tell me just keep doing what you’re doing.
Ed
Diet and exercise can prevent metabolic syndrome without taking drugs:
No effect huh. Well I'll be a bunkeys monkucle......
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Wednesday 05/25/2022 11:52 AM DST
“Never” is too strong a word here.
No, it isn't. When there are prospective clinical trials available, they must be used for treatment decisions. Retrospective observational studies are only useful for researchers, not patients, as hypothesis generation for prospective trials.
If you read my article, you will know as much as any expert knows and any patient needs to know. Most studies are not worth the paper they are printed on for patient decision making. If you want to understand why, read these:
I stopped it years back ; glad I didn’t make a mistake. Now on estradiol and Xtandi . Blood work tomorrow. Hope psa is stable or lower. Had to go from 160 mg to 80 mg due to extreme fatigue.
Are those publications listed in peer-reviewed publications in pubmed? If so, I and your followers here would love to read them. Please give the links.
I guess there is no proof just pure fiction, as I suspected. I only have one, but anyone can verify it:
Your studies could be phenomenal. But I understood the question or comment is can the results be relied on for patient decision making.
Uncalled for Nal. You surprise me. Who cares what TA looks like.
I ask for truth too. Show these articles about prostate cancer you claim to have published in peer-reviewed pubmed journals. You have a history of playing fast and loose with facts in your posts, misinforming sick patients who are confused by the mumbo-jumbo you spout.
I've noticed that. All over the place. Even if you wanted to follow his lead its helter skelter mumbo jumbo. And if pressed he is special and has insight, mysterious insight that only he is privileged to have. Huuuh?I tried to have respect but I lost it over time
"Show Your real self. " My name is on my blog and I don't hide behind a fake name.
Nal I think TA is our objective sounding board for what the best of our medical science has to say. He’ll say straight off if some treatment is validated by our best medical science knowledge ,i.e., clinicle trials. We all know we have an incurable disease so many of us including you and me are exercising “off label” and not “clinically” proven treatments, based on what makes sense to us. As our fellow patient Schwah once stated, “just trying to stack the deck”.
You have a very intriguing and impressive record of managing your own cancer and have developed your own “alternative” treatment which incorporates elements of adaptive therapy, IADT, off label supplements and meds, etc..
You’re a valuable member of our community.
6357axbx - I am reading a great book that you may want to pick up: Jonathan Rausch "The Constitution of Knowledge." He asks the question asked since Socrates: how do we know what is true?
nationalaffairs.com/publica...
It is a difficult question that philosophers and scientists have struggled with. The short answer is we don't, but we have a process for determining truth and distinguishing it from falsehood. Due to the Internet and social media, this process is coming apart.
I determined that I would stand for the scientific process - I defer to levels of evidence and qualitative analysis of that evidence; I give references to peer-reviewed research; I try to take my biases out of it as much as anyone can; I look up before answering questions (I cannot imagine anything more horrible than misinforming a patient); I make mistakes and hope I learn from them.
In contrast,there are those on this site who stand behind fake names, generalize to humans from rats, and use all the tools of pseudoscience:
prostatecancer.news/2021/07...
One must be very careful in this "post-truth" era.
How do you know that anything Nal or others tell you is true? You don't know real names, they lie about qualifications and publications, they are anti-vaxxers, they promote hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19, they provide support for Life Extension (perhaps the Internet's biggest purveyor of lies) , they provide recipes for known poisons, and they are naturopaths (i.e., quacks). They may even be lying about their diagnoses. I know Nal lies about being Jewish ["Jews for Jesus" is a horrible post-truth construct that my relatives who died for being Jewish would abhor]. What else is he lying to you about?
Read his reply on this thread before you decide if he is a "valuable member of our community."
Nal, I am flattered that you are interested in seeing a recent pic. However, you are not my type. I am sure you can find a fellow troll on GRINDR.
Who is Burt?
I feel like I've been riding a seesaw on the conclusions on Metformin benefit (outside the context of being on ADT or pre-diabetic). I like the large systemic review as other articles can cherry pick studies that confirm a bias of the author. This systemic review from 2019 that looked at 30 studies, 1.6 million patients seems to conclude there IS benefit and my own opinion before reading this was there was wishful thinking involved in concluding Metformin had a significant benefit (again for those not on ADT or are not diabetic.) The key question would be, are all those 30 studies considered "high quality" - which I have not the time right now to determine. The studies listed in Tall_Allen's article have very relatively small numbers of patients.
I'm assuming most if not all these 30 studies are confounding (or whatever the term) for patients that were pre-diabetic or diabetic? As the really question is if this makes a difference for those of us who are not pre-diabetic or worse. My last blood test had A1C 4.9% and Estimated Average Glucose of 94. I'm wondering what side effects are possible for someone like me to start taking Metformin. Wasn't there a natural supplement that does sort of the same thing? Ah, yes, Berberine. I don't think you'd want to mess with that without working with your Doc and monitoring blood levels?
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/307...
"Our study revealed that metformin treatment improves OS, CSS and RFS in PCa (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.59-0.88, P = 0.001; HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94, P = 0.009; and HR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.42-0.87 P = 0.006, respectively) compared with non-metformin treatment. However, metformin usage did not reduce the incidence of PCa (HR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.55-1.34, P = 0.51). In conclusion, compared with non-metformin treatment, metformin therapy can significantly improve OS, CSS and RFS in PCa patients. No association was noted between metformin therapy and PCa incidence. This study indicates a useful direction for the clinical treatment of PCa."
I suggest you take some time to learn how to evaluate trials. Here's a good starting point:
cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/lev...
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
Once you understand why 1000 x zero still equals zero, it will get rid of your confusion. Even when registries are used that observe data on millions of patients, it usually leads to erroneous conclusions. You may be interested in this:
ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.12...
It's not that I'm clueless on the value of say a Double Blind RCT versus a study saying Metformin is this or that based on searching a database of patients who are diabetic that took metformin to see if there's a larger occurrence of PCa. It's just in the systematic review I referenced that looked at data encompassing a size of 1.6 million, I had not had the TIME yet to look at the design of each of the individual 30 studies it used. Most of the journals in Pubmed are peer reviewed, not that I consider anything and everything in Pubmed as gospel.
Similarly, I would assume you agree the study size is important. Your article references 6 trials, one of which wasn't an RCT. Of the 5 RCTs only 1 had a size of more than 100 patients. Two had less than 30. Do you find RCTs with less than 30 patients to be reliable for drawing conclusions from, or did you include those in your article to essentially create your own small systematic review?
I think the information you present is valuable in helping people draw conclusions about Metformin (at least I find it valuable personally) but it is one of many sources. I also think the 6 authors who had 30 studies instead of 7, and 1.6 million total size instead of a few hundred, with their review published in Pubmed are also providing valuable information, albeit on a larger scale.
The best strategy would be to look at the design of all 37 (your 7 and their 30) in more detail to determine if any might be disregarded as being unreliable in their conclusions. Until then, I personally give all 37 the benefit of the doubt.
You do not seem to understand why 1,000,000 X 0 =0
You obviously did not read those resources, or you would not make such outlandish remarks.
All I can do is show you why. If you choose to think you know better than the scientific establishment, that is your choice.
Is EBRT effective for right pelvic bone prostate cancer? What are the side effects?
Aggressive Prostate Cancer Subtype More Common Than Expected
Side effects of radiation for prostate cancer
Prostate Cancer Has A Will To Live
