← Return to Rising PSA's after treatment - an answer

Discussion

Rising PSA's after treatment - an answer

Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Jan 11 8:59am | Replies (31)

Comment receiving replies
@consultant

Yes, one thing is for sure, you need do your own homework and analysis and not just rely on what the "experts' think. It's sort of a team effort and you are the leader of the team, not your Oncologist or Radiologist. They are just team members (with valuable input.)

If I have to do SRT, including the Pelvic area is a tough call given that I was Gleason 3+4 with PSA < 0.02 up to 16 month after surgery and no adverse post-RP pathology (clean margins, 14 negtive lymph node removed, etc.) BUT, and that's a big BUT, there seems to be an emerging trend in treatment that your chances of a cure, especially at your secondary treatment, is to essentially hit it with everything you got as early as possible.

If the go hard and early is the ticket, that would mean SRT including the pelvic area at PSA between 0.03 and 0.1 (SBRT is showing it is just as effective with only 5 treatments instead of the traditional 30 lower dose treatments), with ADT (6 months), and followup chemotherapy.

The other side of the coin reads "overtreatment/side effects with no benefit" Which translates to higher chance of Grade 3 side effects on the RT if you include the pelvic area, some unpleasant side effects from the ADT, and even more unpleasant I imagine from chemo. But the theory is, your best chance of eradicating the cancer is BEFORE it spreads and when micrometastases are at a minimum. It seems this common thinking that, "it's early" lets just start with "this" and then if it gets to the point we can see something on a scan we'll do "this also." By the time you can see something on a scan outside the prostate/prostate bed, I suspect the chances of a cure pretty low. You're just trying to slow it down.

So "on paper" (assuming you have support from your MO and Radiologist and no battle with insurance), it seems like it should be an easy decision to throw the kitchen sink at it as early as possible. Feel a lot crappier for longer in the short term, but with a higher chance of being cancer free in the long term. At age 55 am I going to completely lose erective function from SRT, no. Is ADT going to make my penis fall off? No. In fact my girlfriend would probably enjoy seeing me on ADT so I can experience what she's been going through with menopause the last 4 years. Will Chemo kill me at this age with this stage of cancer? No. Will all this stuff boil down to accelerating my aging for a while, probably.

So does it boild down to there's just not enough trial data on what I would term "early aggressive" treatment protocols to justify insurance paying for it all that early? (I'm guessing insurance won't pay for Doxatel if you have no tumors on your PSMA PET scan??? ) I'm sure of course there's also just not wanting to deal with bad side effects unless you're sure you need the treatment. Not a lot of people want to volunteer for chemo with a 0.1 PSA and their oncologist says they have no confirmation of metastatic disease?

I believe within the next 10 years, the medical technology will either have a cure or like HIV will be able to indefinitely keep the cancer at bay for the rest of your life which is already the case for man of those diagnosed within 10 or 15+ years or so of their life expectancy.

Jump to this post


Replies to "Yes, one thing is for sure, you need do your own homework and analysis and not..."

I see your perspective, but I would like to suggest some other possibilities. My experience has been that cancer doctors are among the most optimistic MDs around and research cancer doctors are among the most optimistic cancer doctors. Therefore, I treat the new reports of "breakthrough" possibilities as just that, and the clinical standards of care as more sober realities. [They also get paid for treating, not for waiting :-), and for addressing their clients concerns and fears, even if they're not entirely rational.]
I think you're right that the "right time" to do salvage treatments after RP is drifting down. My urologist says around 0.10 (using ultrasensitive PSA assays) is probably the best guess. In my assessment his judgment is sober and well-informed.
The arguments about when to treat include health-related quality of life as well as longevity. Having just watched my sister die of a different cancer, I can testify that quality of life can vary a lot along the journey with cancer. These are hard issues to think about, much less know how we will feel when the time actually comes.
So I would say the "best hopes" will usually get scaled back and knowing that should also be taken into account when deciding on courses of treatment. For instance, I like to remind people that no one once diagnosed is ever "cancer free," that's just a convenient euphemism for "we can't find further evidence of your cancer at the moment with our current diagnostic tools." Instead, once my cancer reaches a certain stage (mine is stage 2, I believe) I will never be reversed to stage 1, much less stage 0. To be crass, I have a bell in the garage and I can ring it whenever I want. When I "ring the bell," I'm just hoping I won't have to come back again for a good while. But sometimes that's because there is no longer any effective treatment available today--in 10 years, maybe, but I was alive 30 years ago and the hope was exactly the same. And yes, we do have better treatment strategies and techniques and longer lives with higher hrQOL, but also yes, people are still dying from prostate cancer.

Here's some "light" reading... " https://www.urotoday.com/library-resources/mhspc/147798-the-current-state-of-treatment-implementation-for-mhspc-in-north-america.html?utm_source=newsletter_12452&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the-underutilization-of-treatments-and-testing-in-advanced-prostate-cancer

For those who don't want to wade through he charts and data...

Conclusions:

Although there appears to be increasing utilization of treatment intensification in the real-world setting, less than half of mHSPC patients receive guideline concordant care. While there may be altruistic reasons to avoid treatment intensification secondary to concerns for patient financial toxicity or concerns for the tolerability of these agents, the proven survival benefit conferred by this treatment paradigm should make this approach the clear standard of care. Based on the current evidence, it appears that patients with synchronous, high volume mHSPC benefit from early treatment intensification with triplet therapy in the form of both an ARPI and docetaxel, whereas the remaining mHSPC subgroups benefit most from doublet therapy with ARPI addition to ADT. Radiotherapy to the prostate is also associated with improved overall survival in mHSPC patients with synchronous, low-volume disease and should be considered in these cases.