PSA Nadir After RT+ADT for Prostate C... - Advanced Prostate...

Advanced Prostate Cancer

22,348 members28,110 posts

PSA Nadir After RT+ADT for Prostate Cancer Predicts Outcomes

Scout4answers profile image
8 Replies

monthsrenalandurologynews.com/hom...

One could read this and construe that that 6 months of ADT would be as good as as 24-36

but of course it does not measure different co-morbidities nor gleason scores and other factors:

The 10-year prostate cancer-specific mortality rates for patients with a PSA nadir of 0.1 ng/mL or higher were 14%, 15%, and 14% for the patients who received RT alone, RT plus short-term ADT, and RT plus long-term ADT, respectively. The rates for patients with a PSA nadir less than 0.1 ng/mL were 8%, 7%, and 7%, respectively.

The 10-year overall survival rates were 58%, 56%, and 50% for patients with a PSA nadir of 0.1 ng/mL or higher, respectively, compared with 52%, 62%, and 63%, respectively, for those with a PSA nadir less than 0.1 ng/mL.

Written by
Scout4answers profile image
Scout4answers
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
8 Replies
maley2711 profile image
maley2711

Too much of a generalization without regard to other variables that are associated with .outcomes......primarily Gleason score....IMHO.

Don_1213 profile image
Don_1213

I read this paper yesterday and my impression was it draws conclusions with inadequate data and possibly outdated treatment data.

meetings.asco.org/abstracts...

That's the actual abstract of the paper. While it compares 3 different forms of treatment (RT alone, RT + Short-Term ADT, RT + Long-Term ADT) and groups these into two groups based on PSA at 6 months from the conclusion of treatment, it never discusses exactly what prompted the treatments used on the different patients. I would have to assume that the treatments were based on things that fall into the "risk" categories typically used for PCa diagnosis (Low risk, intermediate risk, high risk).

The paper doesn't include any indication that factors that may depress PCA readings (such as finasteride used for urine flow issues) were considered. I'm a very good example of that - my PSA for a full year after RT treatment was 0.1 or <0.1 (undetectable with the test used).

During that time I was on ADT and finasteride for continence issues. When I stopped taking the finasteride my PSA number doubled over a short period of time, and has remained around 0.23 (+/-0.04) for the past 2 years.

So taking my history - where would I have fallen in that study (RT + 18 months of ADT)?

The other factor that really is rarely taken into account is the difference in SOC between when the patients were treated (10 years before the study) and current practice.

And finally from the abstract "Table shows 5-yr MFS, 10-yr PCSS and 10-yr OS based on PSAn within 6m after RT completion." - uhhhh..

In this case, two of the groups that were categorized in the study quite likely were still on or affected by ADT - which is known to depress PSA. When I first read the reports on this paper - this wasn't at all clear -- when the 6 months started. I had assumed it meant 6 months after concluding ALL treatment - especially ADT. Nope. IMHO - thats a big flaw in the study.

I have to agree with maley2711 - a much too generalized study based on inadequate and out of date information. But - that's just me.

Scout4answers profile image
Scout4answers in reply toDon_1213

I agree it is flawed.

PSAed profile image
PSAed in reply toDon_1213

Thanks for posting that.

I was on LUPRON for 2 years ( now completed ) but was /still am on DUODART... (Tamsulosin/Dutasteride) while on LUPRON. My PSA tests have been undetectable throughout treatment and my last PSA test 6 months after finishing treatment was also <0.01.

How can my PSA tests be of use to my Oncologist if the results are skewed by DUODART? He prescribed it.

Mgtd profile image
Mgtd

sometimes the trouble with article summaries is that you lack the actual analysis. You may want to look at the real thing.

meetings.asco.org/abstracts...

I have seen another study like this and had the same issue with the timing of ADT. But it seems like the study is just saying something simple. That <.1 PSA 6 months after RT is better. Even with ADT. Because a significant number don’t have PSA <.1 at that juncture. We may be trying to dissect it more than we should. There is another study that talks about the difference between 6 months ADT and 18 months.

Spyder54 profile image
Spyder54

I’m quite certain I remember TA saying that Finesteride /Dutesteride have less effect on PSA over time. Yes, upfront they talk about doubling PSA if on the “rides”, but not long term. What is long term? Longer than 1yr? 2yrs??

Maybe TA can jump in if he remembers that previous discussion. Mike

CAMPSOUPS profile image
CAMPSOUPS in reply toSpyder54

Not all encompassing but a little info. on Finasteride:

healthunlocked.com/advanced...

Not what you're looking for?

You may also like...

Nadir PSA & time to nadir during initial ADT - & prognosis

New study below. Adding to the evidence that a slower response to ADT is better. "We reviewed the...
pjoshea13 profile image

PSA-Density and nadir PSA as prognostic markers in metastatic prostate cancer

Ok, first of all...I don't know my PSA density and I had not heard about it before! But this is an...
Maxone73 profile image

More data from the LATITUDE study.

New paper below [1]. "At 6 mo, 40% receiving AAP {abiraterone acetate and prednisone} + ADT and...
pjoshea13 profile image

RT/RP vs RT/ADT OCSS (overall cancer-specific survival)

What am I missing? Looks like RP with RT OCSS is a fraction of OS (overall survival). I have looked...

Docetaxel vs Surveillance After Radical Radiotherapy for Intermediate- or High-Risk Prostate Cancer

TAKE-HOME MESSAGE •Docetaxel combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) has improved...
Balsam01 profile image