Prostate Cancer Survivors

 

YANA - YOU ARE NOT ALONE NOW

PROSTATE CANCER SUPPORT SITE

 

 

This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer.
There are only four rules:

  • No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
  • No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
  • No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
  • Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making

Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.

Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Stranger,

Even if your statement reegarding treatment failure is current and correct, there is a tremendous difference between so called "biochemical treatment failure" which is to say a rising PSA and the treatment failure that results in death. Ask DOUG ADAM or any of the other 'old hands' who have had secondary treatment and are still living their lives.

All the best

Terry Herbert

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Terry,

The statement was from an older study and of course you're right about recurrence normally being treatable. My intent was to show Lilian I had been researching both sides of the PCa battle and share that point with her because it seemed relevant to her husbands story. I'm stretching my memory here but I think that statement was from a 1998 study, which just happens to be when Lilian's husband was diagnosed.

I think the term pussycat and tiger is apporiate to PCa. To me the problem is your gleason score does not reflect those terms sometimes. If you have a Tiger you're in trouble no matter what your gleason score is, as show here by Lilian's husbands Gleason 3+4 being so aggressive. Of course I know anytime there's an element of gleason 4 the landscape changes.

The Stranger

Re: Interesting article

Aloha BillG & company,
Interesting way to identify the 3 groups of PC men, rather obvious ... but interesting. My last visit with the oncologist included "what happens when it comes back". He responded that we would use another form of ADT and that my psa would be the indicator. I replied, "But I do not want to go through that again". He shrugged his shoulders and continued on out of the room. So, when you got it bad, they throw everything ya got at it the first time and it comes back your choices are very slim.
So, I also fall into the second group, but I fear that I will also enter the third group. No way do I want to make that treatment decision.
Once diagnosed, this discussion becomes mute, you are screened the rest of your life.
Very difficult to be upbeat about this.
Joe

Re: Re: Interesting article

Joe,

I am in the same boat. After surgery and ADT/radiation I asked my oncologist "What if it comes back?" He also said "More ADT". I do not want to go through that again. I was miserable and could barely function. Are there any other options for our situation?

Paul A. RI, USA

Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

My question is of 266 individuals per 100 thousand, how many men died of "cancer" of which the original cause of death was never determined because they avoided screening or physicians of which many men in the above 60 age group do, or an autopsey was never performed to determine the real cause of death. Case in point a close friend of mine died last month of PCa in Washington, D.C. at a prominent hospital and they listed the cause of death as kidney, bone and brain cancer all of which originated 13 years ago as prostate cancer. Controlled studies are one thing however when you go country or world wide, well it then is anyone's best guess.

Another thing that bugs the hell out of me is when someone says you'll die of something else before PCa.
My Gleason was a 9 and the surgeon, on my initial visit to him to discuss my options sure as hell didn't say that, nor has my oncologist after completing radiation. As a matter of fact I have never had anyone with PCa tell me that which has been affected with the disease, only those "experts" sitting on the side lines.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I heard, PCa is the second most common form of cancer among men so, the math alone would make it the second largest cause of death among men to a degree, certainly more than 266/100,000.

Jack Rowinski
Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Hi Jack
Yes it is the second largest cause of death among men . every year 25000 men die from it . The American Cancer Society sent my husband on the day he passed a letter congratulating him for his ten years survival and inviting him to a celebration in Burbank California for all those who survived.
Be vigilant and fight for your life and do not trust blindly your doctors , do not be afraid , be faithful and fight and argue with your doctors as much as you can, you are and inidividual and you should be treated according to your individuality and not statistics or protocols.
God Bless you

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

I am Lilian's daughter and I wanted to respond to this post. I just want to wish all of you positive outcomes in treatments and blessings always. At the same time, I encourage every young man to be struck by this disease to find group therapies and other men for support. I also encourage you all to take hold and control of your treatment plans and options. To educate yourself on not just treatment options but also on medical lingo, on the human body. You have to fight for yourself more than those treating you. Do not succumb to pain!!! There's a saying that pain can kill you. Pain is a horrible thing and when prostate cancers returns or when it has metastasized, it can cause terrible bone pain. Fight the pain with a strong mind with good thoughts and spirit. Keep eating. This disease would love for your autoimmune system to fail, and most important we must all fight for more prostate cancer awareness. It is a killer and years ago it was thought to be a disease that if confined, caught quickly, and with a radical prostectomy, that would be the last of it. Unfortunately it isn't so. All the fathers, husbands, brothers, grandfathers we need you guys. You have to fight! ~In Loving Memory of my hero

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Jack,

You say Correct me if I'm wrong but the last time I heard, PCa is the second most common form of cancer among men so, the math alone would make it the second largest cause of death among men to a degree, certainly more than 266/100,000.

I am not absolutely certain what you are saying, but it seems you may be incorrect in your statement so Ill try to clarify and, if you are wrong, correct the error:

PCa is not the second most common form of cancer among men, nor, as Liliana says is it the second largest cause of death among men. It is the most common form of cancer in men, but there are more deaths from lung cancer and many more from heart conditions.

Broadly speaking, heart conditions account for about 35% of male deaths in the USA and PCa deaths account for about 3% of male deaths. That is the measure, approximately, in most countries – about 10 times the PCa rate for heart. Of course, the relationships vary as men age – and that is shown in the article that started this discussion.

The statement, misquoted by Liliana, as is so often the case in the media, that PCa is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in men is correct, but that is only relative. If a race was organised between an Indie car and a Volkswagen, the outcome would be clear, but saying that the Volkswagen was the second fastest car in the US would be somewhat misleading. I don’t know if you have seen the chart CANCER 2003 ? This was produced a couple of years ago by John E. Holliday, a long time prostate cancer survivor (he was diagnosed a little before I was). It is simplistic but illustrative of the relative dangers of the various forms of cancer.

All the best

Terry in Australia

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Terry: I now understand the differentiation.

Thanks, Jack

Re: Interesting article

Every time I read an article like that I get more pissed off... not because the data is wrong but because the doctors who do the research almost never focus on the real problem - on the treatment advice given by many doctors.

I was diagnosed last year at the age of 46 and although it was a shock, I was glad to have the chance to do the research and make a decision on what treatment (if any) I wanted. I talk to many men with low PSA and gleason score who are told they need to get treated right away or who have the latest treatment pushed on them.

Keeping our heads in the sand clearly isn't the answer, understanding the risk and treatment options is.

Regards, DAvid

Re: Re: Interesting article

I have to say to all of this that I personally know 3 gentlemen who were all diagnosed at the age of "fifty something". All had surgery for their prostate cancer. All were confined to the organ and had gleason scores of 6 and 7 before and after surgery. These surgerys took place between 15 to 20 years ago and they are still doing fine with no dectible PSA.

I would like to know what ages are considered "young age"? I am sure forty's falls in that catagory, but what beyond that?

nettie (USA)

Re: Re: Re: Interesting article

Nettie,

There is no real defintion of "young age" as far as PCa is concerned.

If we look at the statistical profiles we know that the median age for diagnosis used to be in the mid seventies and is now in the mid sixties. So anyone younger than about 63 would be on the 'young' side of the divide.

In 1996 when I was diagnosed at the age of 54 I was said to be 'young', probably because my age was 20 years less than the median. Using the same argument now would produce a 'young' age of mid-forties.

But, as I say, there is no definition that I know of - hardly surprising, since there is very little agreement on any issue involving this disease.

All the best

Terry in Australia

RETURN TO HOME PAGE LINKS