What’s difficult to determine are his references to “intermediate” prostate cancer - is he referring to 7(3+4) or 7(4+3)?
Also, the data for this retrospective study is as from treatments during 2004-2007. It’s always challenging applying 20-year old data to modern technology. (But, that’s the nature of research.)
What’s difficult to determine are his references to “intermediate” prostate cancer - is he referring to 7(3+4) or 7(4+3)?
Also, the data for this retrospective study is as from treatments during 2004-2007. It’s always challenging applying 20-year old data to modern technology. (But, that’s the nature of research.)
@brianjarvis
Even if it was only talking about 4+3 that number looks shocking.
ChatGPT says:
≤0.5 ng/mL
Excellent prognosis.
10–15 year biochemical control rates often 80–90%+, depending on risk category.
0.5 – 1.0 ng/mL
Good prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 65–80%.
1.0 – 2.0 ng/mL
Intermediate prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 40–60%.
>2.0 ng/mL
Poorer prognosis.
Often suggests persistent or recurrent disease.
Long-term control rates drop significantly (< 30–40%).
@brianjarvis
Even if it was only talking about 4+3 that number looks shocking.
ChatGPT says:
≤0.5 ng/mL
Excellent prognosis.
10–15 year biochemical control rates often 80–90%+, depending on risk category.
0.5 – 1.0 ng/mL
Good prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 65–80%.
1.0 – 2.0 ng/mL
Intermediate prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 40–60%.
>2.0 ng/mL
Poorer prognosis.
Often suggests persistent or recurrent disease.
Long-term control rates drop significantly (< 30–40%).
@ozelli Depends on knowing many other factors. If it’s a 7(4+3) with 95% of cell type “4” and even if a 7(3+4) with other risk factors like Cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, etc. It’s important to know the details of the cohorts in the study. PSA isn’t everything.
(I don’t put much confidence in ChatGPT answers unless one knows the specific question to ask. And even then, I would confirm the answers.)
What’s difficult to determine are his references to “intermediate” prostate cancer - is he referring to 7(3+4) or 7(4+3)?
Also, the data for this retrospective study is as from treatments during 2004-2007. It’s always challenging applying 20-year old data to modern technology. (But, that’s the nature of research.)
@brianjarvis
Agree. Many of the videos and studies are decades old and don't reflect todays radiation treatments advancements.
I am taking part in a long term study of photon and proton radiation treatmens being done by UFHPTI. They received a 25 million dollar grant to do this. When finished won't help me but hopefully will have facts that others can benefit from.
@brianjarvis
Agree. Many of the videos and studies are decades old and don't reflect todays radiation treatments advancements.
I am taking part in a long term study of photon and proton radiation treatmens being done by UFHPTI. They received a 25 million dollar grant to do this. When finished won't help me but hopefully will have facts that others can benefit from.
@jc76 I had the opportunity to be in either a proton vs photon study or a proton study with three arms (39 sessions at 2.0 grays each, 28 sessions at 2.5 grays each, or 20 sessions at 3.0 grays each).
I asked my RO which one they actually had the best results with in practice? He replied “28 sessions at 2.5 grays.” I said let’s go with that.
I can appreciate helping future guys, but my priority was in treating my disease. (On the other hand, if I had no hope of success, then I certainly would have considered a clinical trial.)
With that understanding, my RO gave me the option of having my proton radiation treatment results submitted into a registry, which I accepted. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02040467). Hopefully, that will help someone make a treatment decision one day.
@ozelli Depends on knowing many other factors. If it’s a 7(4+3) with 95% of cell type “4” and even if a 7(3+4) with other risk factors like Cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, etc. It’s important to know the details of the cohorts in the study. PSA isn’t everything.
(I don’t put much confidence in ChatGPT answers unless one knows the specific question to ask. And even then, I would confirm the answers.)
@jc76 I had the opportunity to be in either a proton vs photon study or a proton study with three arms (39 sessions at 2.0 grays each, 28 sessions at 2.5 grays each, or 20 sessions at 3.0 grays each).
I asked my RO which one they actually had the best results with in practice? He replied “28 sessions at 2.5 grays.” I said let’s go with that.
I can appreciate helping future guys, but my priority was in treating my disease. (On the other hand, if I had no hope of success, then I certainly would have considered a clinical trial.)
With that understanding, my RO gave me the option of having my proton radiation treatment results submitted into a registry, which I accepted. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02040467). Hopefully, that will help someone make a treatment decision one day.
@brianjarvis
My involvement with UFHPTI is not a clinical trial. I had 30 rounds of proton radiation prescribed to me by the R/O after their physics deapartment makes their reocmmendations.
The study I am in is looking at the success, side affects, issues, problems of proton and photon radiation treatments. Not many currect long term studies being done. The study is to look at those who have already gone through treatments.
I hope I did not infer I was in clinical trial. It is an after treatment study.
@brianjarvis
My involvement with UFHPTI is not a clinical trial. I had 30 rounds of proton radiation prescribed to me by the R/O after their physics deapartment makes their reocmmendations.
The study I am in is looking at the success, side affects, issues, problems of proton and photon radiation treatments. Not many currect long term studies being done. The study is to look at those who have already gone through treatments.
I hope I did not infer I was in clinical trial. It is an after treatment study.
@jc76 There are two clinical trials looking into this; COMPPARE and PARTIQoL.
—> The PARTIQoL trial interim results are showing that both therapies achieved similar tumor control rates and patient-reported quality of life outcomes. Specifically, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival or patient-reported outcomes like urinary, bowel, and sexual function
—> The COMPPARE trial is another large-scale study also comparing proton therapy and IMRT, but with a different focus on patient-reported outcomes. The COMPPARE trial is still ongoing.
The COMPPARE and PartiQoL trials seem to be showing no different QoL or success rate outcomes between proton and photon radiation. If so, does this spell the end of proton radiation for prostate cancer, as instance companies will lean towards the much less expensive photon?
@jc76 There are two clinical trials looking into this; COMPPARE and PARTIQoL.
—> The PARTIQoL trial interim results are showing that both therapies achieved similar tumor control rates and patient-reported quality of life outcomes. Specifically, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival or patient-reported outcomes like urinary, bowel, and sexual function
—> The COMPPARE trial is another large-scale study also comparing proton therapy and IMRT, but with a different focus on patient-reported outcomes. The COMPPARE trial is still ongoing.
The COMPPARE and PartiQoL trials seem to be showing no different QoL or success rate outcomes between proton and photon radiation. If so, does this spell the end of proton radiation for prostate cancer, as instance companies will lean towards the much less expensive photon?
I read some studies about salvage RT using proton - yes results are the same there too except that side effects are milder and less common with proton and that is IMHO a big plus. Life is not only about survival - quality of life is extremely important .
Regarding 50% recurrence, our RO told us about that also since we were upset about upgrade of 4+3 to 4+5. He said that 4+3 has 50% recurrence in 5 years too so treatments would be the same on the long run. I do not know if that is comforting fact for us but it is what it is ...*sigh
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
What’s difficult to determine are his references to “intermediate” prostate cancer - is he referring to 7(3+4) or 7(4+3)?
Also, the data for this retrospective study is as from treatments during 2004-2007. It’s always challenging applying 20-year old data to modern technology. (But, that’s the nature of research.)
—> https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2025.43.5_suppl.388
—> https://www.onclive.com/view/ebrt-with-or-without-stad-shows-improved-15-year-survival-in-prostate-cancer
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
7 Reactions@brianjarvis
Even if it was only talking about 4+3 that number looks shocking.
ChatGPT says:
≤0.5 ng/mL
Excellent prognosis.
10–15 year biochemical control rates often 80–90%+, depending on risk category.
0.5 – 1.0 ng/mL
Good prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 65–80%.
1.0 – 2.0 ng/mL
Intermediate prognosis.
10-year biochemical control rates around 40–60%.
>2.0 ng/mL
Poorer prognosis.
Often suggests persistent or recurrent disease.
Long-term control rates drop significantly (< 30–40%).
Both assessments cannot be correct. Who to trust?
@ozelli Depends on knowing many other factors. If it’s a 7(4+3) with 95% of cell type “4” and even if a 7(3+4) with other risk factors like Cribriform pattern, intraductal carcinoma, etc. It’s important to know the details of the cohorts in the study. PSA isn’t everything.
(I don’t put much confidence in ChatGPT answers unless one knows the specific question to ask. And even then, I would confirm the answers.)
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
3 Reactions@brianjarvis
Agree. Many of the videos and studies are decades old and don't reflect todays radiation treatments advancements.
I am taking part in a long term study of photon and proton radiation treatmens being done by UFHPTI. They received a 25 million dollar grant to do this. When finished won't help me but hopefully will have facts that others can benefit from.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@jc76 I had the opportunity to be in either a proton vs photon study or a proton study with three arms (39 sessions at 2.0 grays each, 28 sessions at 2.5 grays each, or 20 sessions at 3.0 grays each).
I asked my RO which one they actually had the best results with in practice? He replied “28 sessions at 2.5 grays.” I said let’s go with that.
I can appreciate helping future guys, but my priority was in treating my disease. (On the other hand, if I had no hope of success, then I certainly would have considered a clinical trial.)
With that understanding, my RO gave me the option of having my proton radiation treatment results submitted into a registry, which I accepted. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02040467). Hopefully, that will help someone make a treatment decision one day.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
3 Reactions@brianjarvis
and that's why they actually have AI job positions for "Prompt Engineers"
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@brianjarvis
My involvement with UFHPTI is not a clinical trial. I had 30 rounds of proton radiation prescribed to me by the R/O after their physics deapartment makes their reocmmendations.
The study I am in is looking at the success, side affects, issues, problems of proton and photon radiation treatments. Not many currect long term studies being done. The study is to look at those who have already gone through treatments.
I hope I did not infer I was in clinical trial. It is an after treatment study.
@jc76 There are two clinical trials looking into this; COMPPARE and PARTIQoL.
—> The PARTIQoL trial interim results are showing that both therapies achieved similar tumor control rates and patient-reported quality of life outcomes. Specifically, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival or patient-reported outcomes like urinary, bowel, and sexual function
—> The COMPPARE trial is another large-scale study also comparing proton therapy and IMRT, but with a different focus on patient-reported outcomes. The COMPPARE trial is still ongoing.
The COMPPARE and PartiQoL trials seem to be showing no different QoL or success rate outcomes between proton and photon radiation. If so, does this spell the end of proton radiation for prostate cancer, as instance companies will lean towards the much less expensive photon?
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@bens1 They’re gonna need a lot of training.
@brianjarvis
I read some studies about salvage RT using proton - yes results are the same there too except that side effects are milder and less common with proton and that is IMHO a big plus. Life is not only about survival - quality of life is extremely important .
Regarding 50% recurrence, our RO told us about that also since we were upset about upgrade of 4+3 to 4+5. He said that 4+3 has 50% recurrence in 5 years too so treatments would be the same on the long run. I do not know if that is comforting fact for us but it is what it is ...*sigh
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions