Connect
← Return to Radiation vs Surgery Gleason 3+4=7, Long Term Side Effects (Cyclist)
Discussion
Radiation vs Surgery Gleason 3+4=7, Long Term Side Effects (Cyclist)
Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Aug 8 11:24am | Replies (55)Comment receiving replies
Thanks for the link. The info varies somewhat from what my surgeon said (and he is a PI -Principal Investigator, at Johns Hopkins for the study). He told me that the trial is randomized with 2/3 getting the aquablation and 1/3 staying with AS rather than RARP. The first arm was just completed and the second to begin shortly. I'll find out in November if I am accepted into the trial. It looks like a promising treatment alternative. Perhaps I misinterpreted the information since I had a lot to absorb during the visit yesterday. Now another wait for the Decipher score and another PSA test.
Replies to "Thanks for the link. The info varies somewhat from what my surgeon said (and he is..."
Connect
@keithl56 That was the ratio on the website 1/3 RP and 2/3 Aquablation. These usually do not get updated unless the information changes so no information on where they are with recruitment and how many patients have already been treated. The trial name (WATER IV) sort of indicates there were previous trials. Main item was the listing of the 26 hospitals where treatment could take place (one was John Hopkins). Your surgeon should know how this relates. Just say you saw a web page looking for subjects for a trial named WATER IV and he will be able to tell you how that relates to the one that you may participate in.
Also FYI: NHS (UK) just completed a 10 year study of 3500 high-risk patients using focal treatments (HIFU, Cryo) and said results were equal to RP or Radiation. Too old for Aquablation or even Tulsa Pro.