Replies to @jeffmarc This is why I opted for ADT. The 5% number is not particularly scientific. I've...

Discussion

Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Sep 6 6:48pm | Replies (168)

Comment receiving replies

@tbgb50

@jeffmarc
This is why I opted for ADT. The 5% number is not particularly scientific. I've seen it quoted by multiple doctors, articles and searches with no substantiation. Maybe I'm stubborn I do not see how it can apply to all Gleason 8 and 9 scores and patient ages.

Where I'm still not sure is how long to I will stay on ADT. Setting aside the percentage, do you get 90% of the potential benefit in 6 months? 1 year? 18 months? etc. For now, I've been told ADT affects PSA test so it will take a year to know if my treatments worked (still not sure what "worked" means).

Jump to this post

Replies to "@jeffmarc This is why I opted for ADT. The 5% number is not particularly scientific. I've..."

Jeff Marchi | @jeffmarc | Sep 4 1:04pm

@tbgb50
The deal with ADT is the higher your Gleason score the longer you should be on it. For a Gleason 7 6 months is plenty. Gleason 8 18 months. Gleason 10 or 9 24 months.

The thing is, it’s suppresses the cancer from growing and gives a better chance of having the radiation kill it off.

Not everybody’s the same, however. Some people could pick shorter times, but reoccurrence is more likely since nothing is suppressing the growth and spread

If somebody has metastasis, but they almost definitely want to have longer ADT and an ARPI.

VIEW AND REPLY