Dr. Koo of MD Anderson/Banner in a Grand Rounds presentation offers these statistics in attached Pie Chart. Personally, I find it hard to contemplate a treatment, whether it be RP, RT or Focal with such poor outcomes. If RP and RT have poor results it does make risking Focal treatment more attractive, given the reduced side effects.
Wonder if that doctor read the Ascend RT trial results. At least for nine years that trial showed no recurrence in over 80% of the patients with intermediate and high risk prostate cancer treated with radiation, ADT, and seeds. Tall Allen can probably explain it better than me.
Often what unscrupulous doctors do is they quote retrospective stats from patients who were treated 30 years ago. I've seen similar bogus stats quoted by the salesmen pedalling HIFU or similar. IMO, they should be arrested for intentionally misleading vulnerable patients.
In my case, a surgeon I consulted at a cancer center of excellence after my biopsy at their institution told me that I had intermediate prostate cancer and surgery was comparable to radiation therapy up to 10 years but that surgery was better after 10 years and I would not require ADT. The biopsy was Gleason 8 and PSA was over 20. When I pointed this out to him he brushed it off and he said he would send me supporting documents. These studies were 15 years old and were for intermediate grade prostate cancer. Brachytherapy was not mentioned. You can make up your own mind what to make of it. 🤔
FLA can theoretically spread the cancer too - any invasive procedure can (including biopsies). Fortunately, localized prostate cancer cells are unable to survive outside of the prostate, so "innoculation" of the cancer has almost never been observed. A minority of men get RT after RP - most do not.
Ideally there should be a way to check recurrence rates for individual surgeons and treatment centers. I know this would have a lot of "moving parts" but I personally believe there are large variances from one doctor(and treatment center) to the next.
Maybe we need to start a process where we all pile on RECENT facts and studies to any and every published and released opinions that are using old data. Maybe shame the lite weights into doing deeper and more recent dives into current data and studies.
Is this forum leadership and members up for this??
Please tell us your bio. Age? Location? When diagnosed? Treatment(s)? Treatment center(s)? Scores Psa/Gleason? Medications? Doctor's name(s)?
All info is voluntary, but it helps us help you and helps us too. When you respond, copy and paste it in your home page for your use and for other members’ reference.
THANK YOU AND KEEP POSTING
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.
j-o-h-n Tuesday 12/07/2021 7:22 EST - Day of infamy.
6/2021 Ultra PSA 4.14 (after 30 day course of Advil)
10/2021 Ultra PSA 4.14 (after 30 day course of Celebrex)
11/2021 MRI w/contrast PI RADS 2; stable appearance; 29cc
12/2021 Color Doppler Ultrasound; Lesion identified; follow-up Color Doppler scheduled for June
I switched DR's in May 2021. Dr. in Scottsdale highly recommended systematic transperineal biopsy which I was planning until conferring with my DR. Los Angeles who counseled waiting for a lesion to show up on MRI before having a targeted biopsy. So it's Active Surveillance at least until June.
Hoping miR Sentinel Liquid Biopsy will be released soon as the company intends.
One thing I've learned in 6 years of messing with PC is that you can find a "study" to support whatever "facts" you want to find. Just gotta do two things; look hard and stop when you find what you want.😀
Shoot..didn't see how old this was..LOL. Forgive my noobness.
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.