Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page
Search the Web

PROSTATE  CANCER  SUPPORT  GROUP

  Home Page

  Agenda - Next Meeting

  Future meetings / events

  Mentors

  Prostate Web Links

  General Information

  Articles of Interest

  Contact us

  Archived / Past Meetings

  

 

Articles

Current Articles Relating to Prostate

Cancer and other Prostate Disease.

 

     Note - Click on the first word of the article to read and it will take you there.  Also if you have found articles relating to prostate cancer / disease please send me a copy ( information@prostatesupportgorup.4t.com ) and we will attempt to include it in this section - Thanks,

 

  •   Prostate Cancer Prevention Plan
  •   Lycopene and Prostate Cancer 
  •   Proton Therapy Center Opens to Patients at M D Anderson
  •   PSA Dilemma: Test Results and What Should be Done About Them
  •   Obesity and Weight Gain Tied to Prostate Cancer Death
  •   Prostate Cancer Symptoms 
  •   Updated prognostic model can accurately identify prostate cancers
  •   Total cost burden of prostate cancer varies 
  •   Dr. Catalonia's Response to DaVinci Robotics
  •   Dr. Fagin's responses to Dr. Catalona's Article relating to Robotic Prostatectomy

 

 

Dr. Catalona’s Response to DaVinci Robotics

by William J. Catalona, MD

 

“I do not believe the robotic prostatectomy is as safe a cancer operation as open radical prostatectomy.”

 


In my opinion, the robotic prostatectomy (often called the DaVinci prostatectomy) is not as effective as the traditional open prostatectomy for accomplishing sometimes competing goals of complete removal of cancer and preserving potency.

One of the reasons is that the robot lacks the "human touch" and it is not possible to appreciate how the prostate gland feels and how readily it separates from the nerves and other surrounding tissues. The robot does not handle the prostate gland as gently as the human hand does, and not infrequently the robot may puncture the capsule of the prostate, leading to positive surgical margins.
 
Another limitation is that with the robotic prostatectomy, the prostate is removed by burning it out with electrocautery or a so-called harmonic scalpel that cuts by heat, and if the heat is too near the nerves, it irreversibly damages them. Also, if the burning is too close to the prostate gland, it risks cutting into the prostate, resulting in positive surgical margins and possibly leaving cancer behind.
 
Advocates of robotic surgery say that there is less bleeding and greater magnification with robotic surgery. However, excellent magnification and visualization can be provided with open surgery, and with an experienced surgeon, few patients require blood transfusions from another person.

With robotic surgery, it is more difficult to suture and apply hemostatic clips quickly and it is more difficult to perform a lymph node dissection.

Enthusiasts of the robotic procedure claim it is "less invasive" and has a quicker recovery time. But actually it is more invasive because the surgeon has to go through the peritoneal cavity to get to the prostate (a more invasive approach associated for greater risk for injury to the bowel, major blood vessels, and the ureters and a greater risk for later intestinal obstruction from adhesions).  Usually 6 one-inch incisions are made for robotic surgery, while for open surgery, one 4 to 5 inch incision is made that does not enter into the peritoneal cavity. With the smaller incision now frequently used for open surgery, there is no material difference in the recovery time and return to normal activity. .  .  

The complications with robotic prostatectomy are more serious than with open prostatectomy and they lead to more postoperative emergency room visits, more re-hospitalizations, and more re-operations.

I believe that with the robotic or laparoscopic prostatectomy, the patient and the surgeon have to make more of a stark choice between removing all of the cancer or preserving the nerves to maintain potency.  I believe that there is a greater likelihood of accomplishing both objects with the increased access provided by the open approach.

Most importantly, however, the robotic prostatectomy has no track record in terms of long-term cancer control.  If small amounts of cancer are left behind, it may not become apparent for years.

Patients sometimes tell me that they know someone who underwent a robotic prostatectomy a few months ago and seems to be doing fine. However, the final outcome of the operation may not become apparent for up to 10 years. Thus, long-term cancer cure rates are needed before one can truly evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.

In sum, I do not believe the robotic prostatectomy is as safe a cancer operation as open radical prostatectomy, and I do not believe that nerve-sparing can be as readily or safely accomplished.

For patients, the most important outcomes of radical prostatectomy are: Is he cured of his cancer?  Is he continent?  Can he have erections sufficient for intercourse?

These questions have been well documented for open prostatectomy.  The jury is still out with laparoscopic/robotic prostatectomy. 

The most important factor is the surgeon and not the technique.

 

Return to Top

Dr. Catalona’s Response to DaVinci Robotics

by William J. Catalona, MD

 

“I do not believe the robotic prostatectomy is as safe a cancer operation as open radical prostatectomy.”

Dr. Fagin’s responses to Dr. Catalona’s points are in blue

 

In my opinion, the robotic prostatectomy (often called the DaVinci prostatectomy) is not as effective as the traditional open prostatectomy for accomplishing sometimes competing goals of complete removal of cancer and preserving potency.                                                               In 2003 10% of prostate cancer surgeries were performed using the daVinci robot, in 2004 25%, and in 2005 nearly 50%.  This is clearly becoming the procedure of choice for patients choosing surgery for their prostate cancer treatment.  When you evaluate robotic vs. open surgery here is how the data stacks up.  In the hands of expert open surgeons up to 75% of patients preserve potency.  In the hands of expert robotic surgeons over 90% of men preserve potency.  When it comes to cancer removal both open and robotic surgery experts have essentially the same negative margin rates (getting all the cancer out locally).  Neither operation, from a local cancer removal point of view, is superior

One of the reasons is that the robot lacks the "human touch" and it is not possible to appreciate how the prostate gland feels and how readily it separates from the nerves and other surrounding tissues. The robot does not handle the prostate gland as gently as the human hand does, and not infrequently the robot may puncture the capsule of the prostate, leading to positive surgical margins.
The robot does not handle the prostate gland, the surgeon does.  The robot merely duplicates human motions.  It is only as delicate as the operating surgeon.  So again when we look at open vs. robotic in terms of likelihood of puncturing the prostate, it is the skill of the surgeon not the technique that matters.


Another limitation is that with the robotic prostatectomy, the prostate is removed by burning it out with electrocautery or a so-called harmonic scalpel that cuts by heat, and if the heat is too near the nerves, it irreversibly damages them. Also, if the burning is too close to the prostate gland, it risks cutting into the prostate, resulting in positive surgical margins and possibly leaving cancer behind.                Just like in open surgery the  robotic surgeon removes the prostate using scissors, blunt dissection, clips, and some cautery.  Cautery is used in the open procedure as well and the amount of cautery or burning done in both the open and robotic approach depends on the skill of the surgeon and NOT the technique utilized.


Advocates of robotic surgery say that there is less bleeding and greater magnification with robotic surgery. However, excellent magnification and visualization can be provided with open surgery, and with an experienced surgeon, few patients require blood transfusions from another person.                                        Although one can use magnification for open surgery it does not come close to the magnified visualization that can be obtained with robotics.  The magnification typically used for open surgery is 2.5x magnified a view from your eyes which are about 2 feet away from the patient.  In robotic surgery the magnification is a 10x magnified stereoscopic view from the tip of the lense which is an inch away from the structures being operated on. 

With robotic surgery, it is more difficult to suture and apply hemostatic clips quickly and it is more difficult to perform a lymph node dissection.                                                          Suturing, applying clips, and doing a lymph node dissection are dependant on the skill of the surgeon not the approach.  I can sew and clip with the robot faster than most open surgeons but this is not because the robot is better.  This is because I do up to 12 of these surgeries per week and the average urologist nation-wide performs less than 12 per year.  Again, it is the skill of the surgeon and not the robot that matters. 

Enthusiasts of the robotic procedure claim it is "less invasive" and has a quicker recovery time. But actually it is more invasive because the surgeon has to go through the peritoneal cavity to get to the prostate (a more invasive approach associated for greater risk for injury to the bowel, major blood vessels, and the ureters and a greater risk for later intestinal obstruction from adhesions).  Usually 6 one-inch incisions are made for robotic surgery, while for open surgery, one 4 to 5 inch incision is made that does not enter into the peritoneal cavity. With the smaller incision now frequently used for open surgery, there is no material difference in the recovery time and return to normal activity.  To say robotics is more invasive because you go through the peritoneal cavity is not a fair statement.  Laparoscopic gall bladder surgery, laparoscopic hernia surgery, and laparoscopic appendix surgery all go through the peritoneal cavity.  With respect to the decreased incision size that can be used for open surgery, I don’t care how small you make an open incision, you still have to put retractors in to spread the cut wide enough to fit your hands and your tools inside.  This spreading creates post operative pain.  With robotic surgery there are 5 cuts each ¼ inch in size.  They just hurt less.  And you don’t need to believe me just ask a few patients who have had each procedure done.  

The complications with robotic prostatectomy are more serious than with open prostatectomy and they lead to more postoperative emergency room visits, more re-hospitalizations, and more re-operations.                                                                      I am not sure where Dr. Catalona got this data from.  Complications are no more serious with one procedure than with another.  And complications rates are again surgeon dependent, not technique dependent.

I believe that with the robotic or laparoscopic prostatectomy, the patient and the surgeon have to make more of a stark choice between removing all of the cancer or preserving the nerves to maintain potency.  I believe that there is a greater likelihood of accomplishing both objects with the increased access provided by the open approach.                                               The data on robotic surgery in the hands of the experienced robotic surgeon shows better potency with robotic (I quoted stats earlier) and the same negative margin rates as compared to open.  The only compromise in outcomes is when a patient chooses a surgeon who is less experienced with either approach.  Your outcomes depend on your surgeon no matter what approach you choose.  Even though there is data to support robotic surgery as providing better potency, shorter recovery of urinary control, less pain, less blood loss, and equal cancer outcomes as compared to open surgery, the outcomes are only as good as the surgeon.

Most importantly, however, the robotic prostatectomy has no track record in terms of long-term cancer control.  If small amounts of cancer are left behind, it may not become apparent for years.
Robotic surgery accomplishes the same task as open surgery… the complete removal of the prostate.  If the negative margin rates (local cancer control rates) are the same for the 2 surgeries then their long term outcomes will be as well.  There is nothing about laparoscopic surgery that causes cancer to spread.  We know this from the 10 and 15 year data on laparoscopic colon and kidney surgery.  If the local control is the same the long term outcomes will be the same because both surgeries remove the entire prostate. 


Patients sometimes tell me that they know someone who underwent a robotic prostatectomy a few months ago and seems to be doing fine. However, the final outcome of the operation may not become apparent for up to 10 years. Thus, long-term cancer cure rates are needed before one can truly evaluate the effectiveness of the operation.                                    Refer to my statement above.

In sum, I do not believe the robotic prostatectomy is as safe a cancer operation as open radical prostatectomy, and I do not believe that nerve-sparing can be as readily or safely accomplished.                                                      Dr. Catalona can believe whatever he wants, but there is a large amount of data on robotics that speaks to the contrary

For patients, the most important outcomes of radical prostatectomy are: Is he cured of his cancer?  Is he continent?  Can he have erections sufficient for intercourse?

These questions have been well documented for open prostatectomy.  The jury is still out with laparoscopic/robotic prostatectomy.                  Whatever level of urinary control and sexual function you are going to achive will be achieved by 12-18 months.  We have thousands of documented patients from multiple data series showing superior sexual function outcomes and faster return of continence for robotics.  We know the negative margins (cancer control) within 72 hours of the surgery.  The jury is not out.  We have cancer (negative margin) potency and urinary control for robotics that I have stated earlier.

The most important factor is the surgeon and not the technique.                                                              I would strongly agree that the surgeon is the most important factor.  However, with equally skilled, experienced, and talented surgeons, robotics is advantageous to the patient in terms of a few indisputable points:  Less pain, less bleeding, better return of potency, and faster return of urinary control. 

 

Return to Top

Prostate Cancer Prevention Plan

 Diet

 

Ø      Avoid red meat, dairy fat, and egg yokes

Ø      Eat fish three to four times a week.

Ø      Use olive oil instead of vegetable oil

Ø      Avoid Canola and flaxseed oil at all costs

Ø      Eat a variety of fruits and vegetables

Ø      Eat stewed or cooked tomatoes

Ø      Drink two to four cups of green tea a day

 

Supplements

Ø      Take 200 mcg of selenium a day

Ø      Take 400 IU of Vitamin E a day

Ø      Take 30 mg of Lycopene a day

 

Lifestyle

Ø      Exercise for thirty to forty minutes at least three times a week

Ø      Incorporate relaxation techniques like mediation into your daily life.

  Return to the Top

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Prostate Cancer Support Group

 

Lycopene and Prostate Cancer from Roe Mackey  

 

Lycopene is the red pigment in tomatoes and other fruits.  A range of papers suggests consuming Lycopene is associated with a reduced risk of metastatic prostate cancer.  Recently three randomized controlled trials that test Lycopene impact on prostate cancer have been released.  

The first study - randomized (26) men into a placebo group or group taking Lycopene 30 mg a day for three week before radical prostatectomy.  At the time of surgery, the patients who received Lycopene, compared with those taking the placebo had: 

Ø      smaller tumors

Ø      less involvement of surgical margins (less tissues with cancer)

Ø      a lower plasma prostate-specific antigen levels  

In the second study 54 randomized patients with metastatic prostate cancer were put into two groups: 1) surgical castration alone, 2) surgical castration plus Lycopene (2 mg twice a day). In summary over a two year time period the patients who took the Lycopene had: lower PSA levels; fewer progressive disease; of the 54 men who entered the study, after two years, 12 had died in the group with only castration only; but only 7 in the castration plus Lycopene group.  And the group taking Lycopene had a significant improvement in urine flow.  

In the third clinical trial, randomized patients {before radical prostatectomy) took a placebo and the other a tomato sauce (at least 30 mg of Lycopene a day).  A variety of tests compared biopsy material before taking Lycopene and biopsy material during surgery.  The following results were for men taking lycopene:  

Ø      Mean serum PSA decreased 17%

Ø      Blood Lycopene increased 2 times and prostate Lycopene increased 3 times

Ø      Dying cancer cells were greater.  

The last study involved the amount and absorption of Lycopene.  The study suggests that there is a maximum amount of Lycopene that we can absorb as a single dose and therefore there is no gain in taking large amounts It may be better to take smaller doses (10mg more often) than taking massive amounts at one time.  

Together, these four studies show that it is easy to nearly double blood and triple prostate tissue Lycopene levels with widely available capsules or traditional tomato-based sauces.  These blood and prostate Lycopene levels are associated with a rapid impart on prostate cancer, limiting the extent of the disease at the time of sugary and significantly enhancing the effectiveness of hormonal therapy.  There also are no side effects attributed to Lycopene.  

 In fact, Lycopene appears to have a favorable impact on the biochemical events that lead to diabetes mellitus and obesity.

What is recommend?  The four tests as summarized above were small and should be completed on a much larger scale.  But the tests do indicate possible major improvements and Lycopene is very safe and inexpensive.  The evidence in favor of Lycopene  is already very strong that a recommendation by (Dr. Myers and the Prostate Forum) is to take at least 10 mg of Lycopene or eat a large serving of tomato-based food once a day  

There seems be no advantage to singles doses greater than 10 mg.  There’s roughly 10 mg of Lycopene in one teaspoon of tomato paste.  If you wish to increase the doses take Lycopene pills or tomatoes sauce more often per day.  

But should you take pills or eat tomato sauce?  Cooked whole tomatoes, or tomato sauces, have a wide range of chemicals other than Lycopene that possible have a positive impact on health.  For this reason we (Prostate Forum)  favor using real food rather that pills.  However, we are all busier than we would like to be and you may well find that sometimes it is not practical to consume the appropriate amount of tomato products.  In that case, pills with Lycopene, as tomato-oleoresin, is a good alternative.  In fact is may be good to keep a bottle of supplements handy to case you miss your daily dose of tomato sauce.  

Most of the information regarding Lycopene came from the “Prostate Forum” October 2003 – Dr. Charles Myers MD – Editor-in-Chief

  Return to the top

The following are some Web sites that will give you more information of Lycopene:  

www.lycopene.org\  

www.lycored.com  

www.leffingwell.com/lycopene.htm

  www.prostateforum.com  

Return to the Top

 

Proton Therapy Center at M D Anderson Opens to Patients


First facility associated with a Comprehensive Cancer Center, fourth in the country, to offer advanced beam therapy
M. D. Anderson News Release 06/30/06

Launching a new era in radiation treatment, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center has started treating patients at its Proton Therapy Center.

The first National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center to offer the treatment, and just the fourth facility in the country, the $125 million, 94,000-square-foot Proton Therapy Center at M. D. Anderson will provide eligible patients with the most advanced innovation in radiation therapy.

Proton therapy is the most precise form of radiation treatment available for some tumors, according to James D. Cox, M.D., head of the Division of Radiation Oncology at M. D. Anderson. Because of proton therapy's precision, it minimizes harm to surrounding tissues and optimizes treatment of the tumor.

"The arrival of proton therapy marks a milestone for radiation treatment at M. D. Anderson, with the precision, safety and effectiveness it brings to patients," says Cox.

"When I started in this discipline three decades ago, we had to give radiation to large fields of the body because we couldn't determine exactly where the tumor was. Now, with the evolution of imaging techniques, we can pinpoint where the tumor is and plan the depth of the radiation to the tumor. With proton therapy, we will be able to increase doses of radiation, preserve healthy tissue and treat more patients much more successfully," he continues.

Protons differ from traditional x-ray treatment because they deposit the highest dose of energy when they come to a stop in the body, and have a very low dose of energy when they enter and have no dose as it exits the body. 

"This differentiation gives radiation oncologists greater control and effectiveness in directing and depositing high levels of destructive energies at the tumor," says Cox. "Because a radiation oncologist has the advantage of more precise targeting, the patient receives the most potent radiation treatment possible without damaging surrounding organs or tissue."

Conventional radiation therapy, however, remains a proven and vital cancer treatment, and most often will still be the preferred radiation treatment, says Cox.

To date, more than 40,000 patients at 25 centers around the world have received proton therapy treatment. When M. D. Anderson's facility is operating at full capacity, it can accommodate 3,500 patients a year, making it the largest in the world.

Proton therapy has proved most effective for cancers of the prostate, eye, lung, brain, head and neck and cancers in children.

"There's a broad range of patients who will be treated with proton therapy, and they'll be selected very carefully based on the criteria that their tumor needs a high dose and it's close to sensitive normal organs," says Cox. "Our decisions about who will receive proton therapy largely will be made in the multidisciplinary care team, which also includes medical and surgical expertise. The team is key to our recommendation for standard radiation therapy now, so we will extend proton as yet another option."

Cox says that patients do not feel anything during proton therapy treatment, and because of the minimal effect on healthy tissues, they experience few, if any, side effects.

He added that a major component to the Proton Therapy Center, like all clinical activities at M. D. Anderson, will be to explore new ways to best utilize and advance the field. One of many areas of research will be to investigate new disease sites that may benefit from the therapy. Exploring the interaction of chemotherapy and other molecular agents with proton therapy will be another area of research. All patients treated at the Proton Therapy Center at M. D. Anderson will be enrolled in clinical protocols that will document the results of therapy.

The two-story Proton Therapy Center features three gantry treatment rooms, one fixed-beam treatment room, an experimental treatment area, a full range of patient and research support areas, a synchrotron and beam transport system.

Gantry patient treatment rooms will have a patient treatment bed framed by a large wheel known as a gantry. The gantries, which are 35 feet in diameter and weigh approximately 200 tons - equivalent to the weight of a Boeing 757 - rotate around the patient to direct the proton beam precisely at the tumor target. 

A compact particle accelerator, known as a synchrotron, accelerates protons to variable energies into the beam transport line. The synchrotron contains a ring of magnets that constrains the protons so that they travel in a set path inside the high vacuum chamber. During each revolution of travel through the chamber, the protons gain an increment of energy from radiofrequency power. After many cycles, the protons reach the energy required by a specific treatment plan and are extracted from the ring into the beam transport line, which then directs the proton beam to the patient in a treatment room.

A unique private-public partnership, the Proton Therapy Center was built through a collaboration to develop and operate the investor-owned freestanding $125 million facility. M. D. Anderson provided the facility site, valued at $2.5 million and has full clinical, research and staffing responsibilities. Other investors and partners in the project include: Hitachi, Ltd. and Hitachi America, Ltd., supplying the proton therapy technology; Sanders Morris Harris, Inc. the largest investment bank and securities firm based in the Southwest; The Styles Co., a Houston-based project development and management firm specializing in health-care facilities; the Houston Firefighters' Relief and Retirement Fund and Houston Police Officers' Pension System, lead financial investors in the project; General Electric Company; Varian Medical Systems; and IMPAC Medical Systems.

Located at 1840 Old Spanish Trail near Fannin in the University of Texas Research Park, the Proton Therapy Center is part of M. D. Anderson's Red and Charline McCombs Institute for the Early Detection and Treatment of Cancer. Comprised of six centers focused on the study of genomics, metastasis, proteomics, immunology, diagnostic imaging and drug development, the Institute houses all research facilities except the Proton Therapy Center, which will be the sole patient care facility.

For more information on the Proton Therapy Center at M. D. Anderson, patients can call (866) 632-4PTC.

 

Return to the Top

 

 

PSA Dilemma: Test Results and What Should Be Done About Them

(Dr. Catalona received the 2005 Huggins Award from the Society of Urologic Oncology and gave the Award Lecture on The PSA Dilemma in the Overdiagnosis and Underdiagnosis of Prostate Cancer. This article in QUEST is a summary of that lecture and ensuing interviews with QUEST readers in mind.)

Commentary By Dr. Willian J. Catalona

overdiagnosing in young men is impossible to prove…

The goal of prostate cancer screening is to reduce prostate cancer-related suffering through early detection of curable cancers that can cause disability or death.

At the same time, the goal is to minimize unnecessary diagnosis, and therefore unnecessary treatment-related side effects and deaths.

The strategy is to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment of harmless cancers and also to avoid underdiagnosis and undertreatment of harmful cancers.

The ultimate goal is to ensure high-quality care for all treated patients.

The PSA dilemma is how to use PSA to diagnose prostate cancer early enough to avoid underdiagnosis, but not too early to avoid overdiagnosis?

The concern is more than statistical, but figures are important in a discussion of over and underdiagnosis.

In the United States States it is estimated that in the year 2006, 234,460 new cases of prostate cancer will be diagnosed (33% of the new cancer cases in men) and 27,350 prostate cancers deaths will occur (9% of cancer deaths in men).

The lifetime risk for a US man being diagnosed with prostate cancer is 18%, and 3.1% of all men in the US will die from prostate cancer. Clearly, prostate cancer affects a good many men.

PSA testing has resulted in a decreased incidence of metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis by 75% and a decreased death rate of 25%.

In countries that practice CaP screening, mortality due to CaP has decreased since 1992, as compared to increases during the same time period in countries that do not practice screening.

The ratio of CaP diagnosis to CaP death is 8:1 in the US as compared to 2:1 in countries that do not screen.

People who argue that some CaP is overdiagnosed define it as diagnosing and treating cancers that would not cause symptoms or death.

Statistics counter the argument of overdiagnosis: 30% of patients are "underdiagnosed" (i.e., diagnosed after the cancer has spread to the margin of the prostate gland or beyond). In a young patient this situation is a frightening one.

In a personal review of Dr. Catalona's last 200 patients,12.5% of cancers were found on the pradical prostatectomy specimen to be organ confined, Gleason grade of 6 or less, and a volume of less than 0.5cc.

Dr. Catalona does not consider these tumors to be insignificant cancer because, with time, tumors mutate and become more aggressive, and these changes are not predictable.

 

Removing a prostate with so-called " insignificant" cancers can also mean a life-threatening change was eliminated before it happened. Overdiagnosing in young men is impossible to prove because small, undistinguished tumors can acquire aggressive features over time.

Other factors are important in evaluating what a PSA score means, but, clearly, PSA is a critical element in diagnosing prostate cancer. Total PSA correlates with risk of prostate cancer, PSA velocity and mortality.

Using additional information makes the PSA test results more effective. For example, PSA density is an underutilized tool in diagnosing CaP.

Also, a more conservative PSA velocity cutoff of 0.4ng/ml/year would be more accurate than the existing cutoff of 0.75 ng/ml/year for recommending a biopsy in men whose total PSA level is less than 4.0 ng/ml..

Measuring the percentage of freePSA and complexed PSA is helpful in interpreting PSA results. The lower the percentage of free PSA (less than 15%), the more likely cancer is present.

And in the future, proPSA (an isoform of PSA) might be used to more effectively interpret PSA results.

At present, PSA provides a useful basis for risk assessment across all PSA levels.

It is not widely appreciated that the median PSA value in men in their 40s and 50s who do not have prostate cancer is less than 1 ng/ml. Even in men older than 60 years without known prostate cancer, the median PSA value is less than 1.5 ng/ml.

So, if a man has a PSA value higher than these levels, it does not absolutely mean that he has cancer, but it does mean that he is at a substantially higher risk. The total PSA value is a powerful marker for prostate cancer.

Appropriate use of PSA based techniques is valuable in minimizing underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis of CaP.

A Patient's Perspective:

Men don't live in a space called "overtreatment/undertreatment."

We live in the real world.

During our lifetimes, some of us are diagnosed with prostate cancer.

At that point we can choose to be treated or to deny that the cancer will cause us harm: "Let's wait and see."

It is, however, only after our lives are over that someone can look back and say, "He made a wise decision." or "Wasn't he foolish for not solving the problem when he could have?"

We can only make decisions as best we can at the time when we have to decide. We can't know the future.

Calculating overtreatment/undertreatment is a nice activity for statisticians, but it doesn't help a man in the ordinary process of living.

by Jules Reichel, patient and QUEST columnist

Intelligent Use of PSA:

·  considers that PSA provides a continuum of risk assessment across all PSA levels

·  does not focus only on total PSA cutoff

·  repeats PSA measurements, checks for use of different laboratories and rules out prostatitis (infection in the prostate)

·  uses PSA density, PSA velocity or doubling time, and % free and % complexed PSA in interpreting PSA results

·  avoids underdiagnosis by screening early and frequently and by identifying most aggressive cancers by PSA velocity and other PSA derivatives and isoforms.

 

Return to the Top

 

Obesity and Weight Gain Tied to Prostate Cancer Death


Excess weight may not raise a man's risk of developing prostate cancer, but it may make him more likely to die of the disease

MONDAY, January 8 (Reuters Health) - Excess weight may not raise a man's risk of developing prostate cancer, but it may make him more likely to die of the disease, researchers reported Monday.In a study of nearly 288,000 U.S. men, researchers found that obese men were actually less likely than their thinner counterparts to develop prostate cancer during the 5-year study period.

However, the heavier a man was, the greater his risk of dying from the disease. Dr. Margaret E. Wright and colleagues at the National Cancer Institute report the findings in the journal Cancer.

Past studies have come to conflicting conclusions about the role of excess weight in prostate cancer. While some have suggested that increased weight is a risk factor for the disease, most have found no relationship.

The new study followed 287,760 men between the ages of 50 and 71 starting in 1995. At the outset, the men completed a questionnaire about their overall health, diet and lifestyle habits, height and weight.  Over the next five years, 9,986 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer. Severely obese men had the lowest risk of developing the disease.

When it came to prostate cancer deaths, however, the risk climbed in tandem with a man's weight. Overweight men were 25 percent more likely than thin men to die, while obese men were 46 percent more likely.  Similarly, the amount of weight a man gained through adulthood was unrelated to his prostate cancer risk. But greater weight gain was linked to a higher risk of death from the disease.

According to the researchers, hormones might help explain why excess fat would be linked to prostate cancer death, but not development. Obesity lowers levels of testosterone, which helps fuel prostate cancer, so excess weight may help prevent the disease in the first place.

On the other hand, Wright and her colleagues explain, heavy men have higher levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 and leptin -- two hormones that may aid the progression of tumors. So once an overweight man develops prostate cancer, it may be more likely to prove fatal.

The findings, they conclude, suggest that prostate cancer progression could be added to list of health consequences of obesity.

 Return to the top


 

Prostate Cancer Symptoms

If the cancer is caught at its earliest stages, most men will not experience any symptoms.  Some men, however, will experience symptoms that might indicate the presence of prostate cancer, including:

  • A need to urinate frequently, especially at night;
  • Difficulty starting urination or holding back urine;
  • Weak or interrupted flow of urine;
  • Painful or burning urination;
  • Difficulty in having an erection;
  • Painful ejaculation;
  • Blood in urine or semen; or
  • Frequent pain or stiffness in the lower back, hips, or upper thighs.

Because these symptoms can also indicate the presence of other diseases or disorders, men who experience any of these symptoms will undergo a thorough work-up to determine the underlying cause of the symptoms.

Being Active May Ward Off Prostate Cancer Death
Exercising may reduce a man's risk of developing advanced prostate cancer and make him less likely to die from the disease

  Exercising may reduce a man's risk of developing advanced prostate cancer, a large study from Norway suggests.

In the study, men who were the most active were 36 percent less likely to be diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer than their sedentary peers, while they were 33 percent less likely to die from the disease, Dr. Tom I. L. Nilsen and colleagues from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim report.

However, the men's level of activity had no effect on their overall prostate cancer risk, possibly because exercise influences the aggressiveness of a cancer, rather than the likelihood of cancer developing in the first place, they note.

Studies of exercise and prostate cancer risk have yielded mixed results, Nilsen and his team write in the International Journal of Cancer. To investigate further, they looked at a group of 29,110 men who were followed for 17 years, during which time 957 developed prostate cancer.

There was no relationship between men's level of recreational activity and their prostate cancer risk overall, the researchers found. However, the more active the men were, the less likely they were to be diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer, and the less likely they were to die of the disease. Compared to men who were sedentary, those who worked out once weekly were 30 percent less likely to be diagnosed with cancer that had spread beyond the prostate.

Two large US studies had similar results, with no effect of exercise on prostate cancer in general but a lower risk of advanced disease or death from the disease for the most vigorously active men, the researchers note.

Prognostic Model Identifies Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
An updated prognostic model can more accurately identify prostate cancers that are unlikely to spread and do not require aggressive treatment

By David Douglas

Return to the top


 

- An updated prognostic model can accurately identify prostate cancers that are unlikely to spread and do not require aggressive treatment, Dutch researchers report in The Journal of Urology.

"This model," lead investigator Dr. Ewout W. Steyerberg told Reuters Health, "may help to identify a subgroup of men who are most likely to have a rather indolent prostate cancer."

Steyerberg of Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam and colleagues note that a variety of features, including the results of a standard blood test, called the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, and the number of cancer cells at biopsy have been incorporated into prognostic models.

The researchers tested one model in 247 patients with prostate cancer who were treated with surgical removal of the gland. Indolent cancers were cancers that had not spread outside of the prostate.

Overall, 49 percent of the group had indolent cancer, a much higher percentage than the average predicted probability, which was around 20 percent. This means that by using the model many men could avoid aggressive treatments that will not improve their survival rate, but may lower their quality of life.

"Using this model," Steyerberg concluded, "may contribute to reducing the overtreatment of men with prostate cancer."

SOURCE: The Journal of Urology, January 2007

Prostate Cancer Treatment Cost Varies Widely
An evaluation of healthcare utilization and direct costs of prostate cancer-related treatments shows that the total cost burden of prostate cancer varies significantly by treatment type

By Will Boggs, MD  -- January 18 (Reuters Health)

Return to the top


 

  - The total cost burden of prostate cancer varies significantly by treatment type, according to a new report.

"I would like this information to be used by clinicians to emphasize that, especially, the initial costs of a prostate cancer treatment are not reflective of the full cost over time of the treatment and, therefore, should not be used to determine the best choice of treatment for a patient or in decisions of treatment insurance coverage," Dr. Leslie S. Wilson from University of California, San Francisco, told Reuters Health.

Wilson and colleagues compared patterns of healthcare utilization and direct costs of prostate cancer-related treatments over a 5.5-year period in 4553 newly diagnosed patients, stratified by age, risk group, and ethnic group

In the first 6 months after diagnosis, direct prostate-related costs per patient were high ($11,495) and highly variable ($2586 for watchful waiting to $24,204 for external-beam radiation therapy), the researchers report.

After the first 6 months, prostate-related costs were only $3044, ranging from $2418 for radical prostatectomy to $6019 for androgen deprivation therapy.

Cumulative costs for the entire period were highest for androgen deprivation therapy ($69,244) and external-beam radiation therapy ($59,455) and lowest for watchful waiting ($32,135) and brachytherapy ($35,143), the researchers note.

The most costly treatments were generally reserved for the highest risk groups, the report indicates, whereas the least costly treatments were primarily used by the lowest risk groups.

"Our data demonstrate that prostate-related costs per person are substantial and sustained over time, and that short-term treatment cost comparisons most commonly found in the literature do not truly reflect the cost of treatment choices over the long term," the investigators conclude.

"It appears that current treatment is following clinical treatment guidelines from our data," Dr. Wilson added. "Our paper also reminds us that it is important to examine the downstream costs (which indicate more care needs) of each of the different treatments."   January 10 (Reuters Health)

 

Return to top