I though that the recommendation of the "tumor board" at Smilow Cancer Center in New Haven, CT, would be "doublet therapy" to treat the new metastasis that was found with a PET PSMA scan, (the second one that was found after my Lupron "vacation"; the first was treated with radiation--details of my case are in my Profile and my previous post). But it seems that my medical oncologist has a minority opinion that it might be worth radiating the new, second metastasis--not because this is likely to eliminate my cancer altogether but to put off the side effects that will come with doublet therapy. The second metastasis is in a lymph node in my chest and close to where the resolved first metastasis was in a lung. My radiation oncologist said that despite the proximity, he could still target it, although the downside is some damage to tissues that are close to each other, which increases the possibility of radiation side effects.
All these discussions have taken longer that I expected (or liked) because of the holidays and the oncologists' increasingly busy schedules.
So, the question now is what to do? "Whack the [new] mole" that has popped up, or do the systemic hormone therapy to get it and all the micrometastases that are as yet invisible to scans? My previous three years on Lupron weren't as hard to endure as they could have been, judging by what I read on this forum and elsewhere. But I have felt well for the past year plus and don't relish having heavier side effects from the "doublet therapy." If I did the radiation as a kind of "stop gap" measure, would I be giving my cancer a chance to spread in a way that would make it more difficult to control with "doublet therapy" down the road?
Sorry for the long-winded post but it's tricky balancing the options when there are different shades of grey. I would be grateful for any comments.