CSN Login
Members Online: 6

You are here

Advanced Cancer and waiting...

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

 

I've been watching my score go up this year (surgery early 2010 and salvage late 2015).  My PSA is now .310 up from a .207 in March and .210 in July...I continue with a good and mostly plant base diet, which I believe has helped me over the years (outcome could have been aggressive but it hasn’t to date).  Some days I hate it…So, I keep busy (just bought an abandon 40 acre apple orchard that needs lots of TLC)…I do have a couple of cheat days every 3 or 4 months where I’ll eat a bacon cheese burger but I’m pretty consistent with the plant base diet that I incorporate some cold-water fish into…At the end of the day, I’m blessed…Cancer affects all of us differently and those around us.  So, I’ll stay business, stick to my diet, keep a healthy weight and enjoy my time until the doctors say ADT and reevaluate.

 

The best to everyone on their journey…

 

Georges Calvez
Posts: 530
Joined: Sep 2018

Hi there,
I would not say that your score is going up; it might be, on the other hand it might not.
Look how this guy's PSA level fluctuated over a 28 day period and you will realise that your PSA may or may not be showing anything.
Hang on for December, you may get lucky and see it stay level or even fall.
https://www.yananow.org/PSAexperiment.shtml

Best wishes,

Georges

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi George...thanks for the positive feedback...

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,

Wow … …, that is a big piece of land surely requiring loads of care. I have a fewer number of fruit trees in a 4 acre piece, and each passing year I feel lesser energy to care for it. Working the land with my MF 135 (older than me) has given me trouble too in walking due to a heel spur that it wasn’t there before buying the land. But I am enjoying the produce (fruits and vegetables) grown free of chemicals.

You titled the thread as “advanced cancer” but I think that your case is still localized. Your history since 2010, doesn’t imply a sort of aggressive type of cells in spite of the diagnosed Gleason score 4+3 (7). You still got a chance in eliminating the bandit if you manage to identify the cancerous spots and these lie in an appropriate area to receive spot radiation. This is what I have suggested in your last thread in here;

https://csn.cancer.org/node/319286

The present PSAdt of over 12 months would get you into a PSA of >5.0 (your doctor’s trigger threshold for the next treatment) in almost three years from today. That gives you enough time to explore possibilities in an oligometastatic treatment. They are doing it a JH so that you may inquire them or request your doctor to do so after a PET scan done to locate the spots. ADT will be always valid at any PSA level.

The ORIOLE study;

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/918509#vp_1

Best wishes,

VGama

 

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi VGama...you always take the time to provide great and current information...my urologist in CA said it was "advanced"...I'd shop for a new urologist but University of SF works with me plus I'm on a life long study with Northwestern by Dr. Catalona's team and they at some point in time (as you have noted)...my urologist in CA will be the last  to know...I'm  blessed for sure...i will bring up JH study  to my team...

I've taken on huge physical projects the last 7 years here in CA.  Its been good for me plus profitable too...sometimes I feel it keeps me alive...

 

Thxs

 

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

My PSA test on 01/27/2010 came back as 0.301 and they tell me I'm "stable", whatever that really means but I'll take it!

Steve1961
Posts: 301
Joined: Dec 2017

why do you say advanced ..looks like you had 5 years before reoccurance..did you have  a high gleason score or PSA just curious ..I am seeing someone at UCSF as well.dr Carroll ..

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

I've had surgery, salvage radiation and when it came back my doctors are referring to it as "Advanced cancer"...my original PSA score was 2.8...I stated this journey back in 2009...

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Well, at least there were a decline of the values. This is a case for celebration.

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Well...Jan 27, 2020 was 0.301 and my July 27th test came back at 0.60...it appears I've doubled in 6 months....;-(  I am video chatting with the doctor next Monday....

Clevelandguy
Posts: 690
Joined: Jun 2015

Hi bd,

You might want to talk to your doc the next time to see if genetic therapy might be another tool for you?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1476102/

Dave 3+4

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi David,  thank you for your input and link...thxs

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,

The doubling time should be calculated from the initial PSA 0.207 of March 2019. The increase to 0.60 represents a PSAdt of 8.7 months. Typically the threshold used to compare critical increases in cases like yours is a PSAdt of <9 months. You are close.

Your doctor may be waiting for a much higher level to start the new treatment which could be ADT (hormonal). In your meeting remember to inform him that you want to do a PET scan before starting something. This image exam will show you where the malignancy is located and the test should be done without the influence of any disrupting medication.

Let's hope for the best.

Regards

VG

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi VG...yes, always hope for the best and second opinions...I always appreciate  your input and observations...Iooking forward with what the Dr has to say...The journey continues!  thank you

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi VG....have you read this study?  Separately, I see my doubling time as 8.9-11.9 months?

 

Regards,

BD

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3718717/

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,

The study above is new to me but I have read similar studies done in the decade before 2010. I learn that a PSAdt of 9.5 months is the cutting threshold separating critical from benevolent progression.

My story with this threshold started when I consulted in 2001 Dr Susan Slovin (medical oncologist specialist in PCa) at MSKCC. She diagnosed my case as micrometastases and that made me curious. She formulated such diagnosis from the data pre and  post surgery, together with the information collected when the recurrence status was declared in March 2001, which presented extensive probabilities for far metastasis (therefore in urgent need of an earlier SRT), but that made Slovin to recommend me a wait and see (WW) period. Micrometastases cases were and still are considered to do badly in salvage radiotherapies (combination or multimodal treatments were inexistent at the time). Slovin was involved in studies regarding the optimal timing of salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy and was a supporter for early SRT but in her opinion this fact was controversial in some patients that presented micrometastases. Chemotherapy seemed to be better.

Mario Eisenberger from JH also had similar understanding and recommended me in 2002 to continue WW based on all previous exams and the PSAdt. I was asymptomatic and the data collected from sophisticated MRI annually put everything on hold. With no targets to aim the radiation would be like throwing arrows in the dark trying to hit the bandit. The PSAdt in the first year post RP was really short at 4.5 months. Then it flattens to a PSAdt of 11.1 months and at the end of my 6 years in WW it improved further to an envy PSAdt of 20.4 months.

Today I think that Slovin was right. My SRT was meticulously executed (high degree of confidence on the chosen covered field of attack and isodose planning) but recurrence was again experienced 4 years post SRT. The PSAdt at the time for starting ADT was at 9.9 months. Today 7 years OFF treatment (post two years of ADT) the PSA has increased and has shown two periods in plateaus but overall the PSAdt is calculated at 24.93 months. This seems good but it has no meaning in Systemic cases if a radical is no more an option. PSAdt would be important to you if you plan to go through oligometastatic treatment.

Thanks for the link.

Best wishes,

VGama

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

VGama... had a 0.7 yesterday.  UCSF has generously taken me in for some research THANKS TO YOU... I reached out to them (apparently I might be a good canadate) and as I understand, they get great results at 0.6 from their PSMA PET/PT as it relates to the study you recommended to me... thank you so much for talking the time and addressing my conserns with studies and data since 2009...

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,

I am glad to hear about UCSF's acceptance. I hope all goes well in your favor. Let me know the details once it all starts. 

Meanwhile your PSAdt has improved to 11.4 months. I wonder what have you been doing to contribute for these facts. 

Congratulations 

Best 

VG

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

VG,  the only thing I've changed, has been incorporating some meat into my diet??? I'll take the slow growth... I'll let you know...thanks again

Georges Calvez
Posts: 530
Joined: Sep 2018

Hi there,

There is only a weak relationship between the level of PSA and what a prostate cancer is doing, but the fact that it is not rising rapidly should be a good sign.
See how the scan goes.

Best wishes,

Georges

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi Georges...thanks for the good wishes...yes, we'll see with the scan!

 

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010
The results of my Decipher genomic testing.
On a scale of 0-1, your “score” came back at 0.35; which falls into the low category.
These results correlate with:
2.1% risk of prostate cancer spread within 5 years
3 % risk of prostate cancer related mortality within 10 years
 

 

These appear to be very reassuring results with 12+ years already...next is my PSMA later this month... 
bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

I continue to be blessed with world class research teams that are willing to work with me.  My visit this week was regarding my PET/CAT scans and they are weighing three options and interesting enough they want to do surgery and if you understand the below that is realistically the only option to move forward but we will see what the Gods decide in the next 2 months…

Net, net my cancer remains in the original space after surgery, radiation, Lupron and has started to block/invade my right Ureter.  The professor I am blessed to have an interest in me has never seen this from my understanding…

On a side note, Kaiser was my provider up to December 31, 2010 for the last 4 years.  All these items below were not identified( eg nodules in my lungs, sever calcification in my heart as noted, etc) Their care begs the question of their marketing term “thriving”…. 

 Impressions:

1.  Likely recurrence of disease within the right prostatectomy bed, as described. New mild dilation of the right collecting system may be represent invasion verses mass effect on the right ureter.  

 2. Solid nodules in the right middle and lower lobe measuring up to 8 mm, without increased radiotracer uptake. Continued follow up per oncologic guidelines.  

 FINDINGS: 

Prostate bed: Apparent new soft tissue lesion within the right prostatectomy bed, adjacent to the distal right ureter, measuring 1.6 x 1.4 cm (series 401image 240) with invasion verses mass effect on the ureter and associated increased radiotracer uptake. Regional lymph nodes: No evidence of pelvic lymphadenopathy. 

 Distant sites of disease:  

 Extrapelvic nodes: No evidence of extra-pelvic lymphadenopathy. 

 Bones: No evidence of osseous metastases.      

 Soft tissue metastases: No evidence of soft tissue metastases. 

 

CT findings:  

 Head and neck:   Physiologic radiotracer uptake is noted in the salivary glands.  No evidence of receptor positive metastasis.  

 Chest:   No foci of receptor positive metastatic disease.   

8mm solid pulmonary nodule along the right minor fissure (series 401, image 59) and solid 6 mm nodule (not definitely visualized in 2/17/2014) in the right lower lobe (series 401, image 82), without increased radiotracer uptake.  

Severe calcifications of the left anterior descending coronary artery. 

 

 Abdomen/Pelvis:   No focal uptake is noted in the pelvic or retroperitoneal nodes.   

Compared to 2014, new right renal pelviectasis and hydroureter. Adrenals unremarkable.  Normal uptake is noted in the kidneys as with expected prominent urinary excretion of radiotracer.  

 Interval changes compatible with radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Scattered colonic diverticuli without evidence of diverticulitis. Mild to moderate calcifications of the abdominal aorta and its associated branches. 

 Musculoskeletal:   No foci of receptor positive osseous metastatic disease. 

 Level degenerative changes. Reversal of the normal cervical lordosis.

 FINDINGS:

Prostate bed: Apparent new soft tissue lesion within the right prostatectomy bed, adjacent to the distal right ureter, measuring 1.6 x 1.4 cm (series 401image 240) with invasion verses mass effect on the ureter and associated increased radiotracer uptake.

Regional lymph nodes: No evidence of pelvic lymphadenopathy.

 Distant sites of disease:


Extrapelvic nodes: No evidence of extra-pelvic lymphadenopathy.
Bones: No evidence of osseous metastases.
Soft tissue metastases: No evidence of soft tissue metastases.


CT findings:

Head and neck: Physiologic radiotracer uptake is noted in the salivary glands. No evidence of receptor positive metastasis.

Chest: No foci of receptor positive metastatic disease.
8mm solid pulmonary nodule along the right minor fissure (series 401, image 59) and solid 6 mm nodule (not definitely visualized in 2/17/2014) in the right lower lobe (series 401, image 82), without increased radiotracer uptake.
Severe calcifications of the left anterior descending coronary artery.


Abdomen/Pelvis: No focal uptake is noted in the pelvic or retroperitoneal nodes.
Compared to 2014, new right renal pelviectasis and hydroureter. Adrenals unremarkable. Normal uptake is noted in the kidneys as with expected prominent urinary excretion of radiotracer.
Interval changes compatible with radical prostatectomy and pelvic lymph node dissection. Scattered colonic diverticuli without evidence of diverticulitis. Mild to moderate calcifications of the abdominal aorta and its associated branches.

Musculoskeletal: No foci of receptor positive osseous metastatic disease.

Level degenerative changes. Reversal of the normal cervical lordosis.

IMPRESSION:

1. Likely recurrence of disease within the right prostatectomy bed, as described. New mild dilation of the right collecting system may be represent invasion verses mass effect on the right ureter.

2. Solid nodules in the right middle and lower lobe measuring up to 8 mm, without increased radiotracer uptake. Continued followup per oncologic guidelines.



 

 

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hi,

Hilton

Your PET/CT results are similar to mine indicating malignancy at the prostate bed which was radiated during the SRT. I wonder what will be your doctors at UCFS suggesting in view of the previous RT attack at the area.

In my case, apart from the series of image studies they took also into consideration the results from colonoscopies and cystoscopies done along the years after radiation of Dec 2006. They identified cystitis and proctitis (scar tissues) caused by the radiation, turning down the possibility in having further radiation at the area. The PSMA PET did not specify any thing at the ureters or bladder because the image was blurred due to the radiotracer uptake expected in the urinary excretion, however, the 18F Choline PET scan done one year previous to this exam shown the area clean for the exception to the portion at the prostate bed identified by both PETs. My uro-oncologist exposed my case to the hospital's weekly reunion of Consensus Health Medical Group (in which he belongs) and their opinion was to not further radiate de area. My situation was then classified as systemic.

Surely not all guys following further treatment post SRT were found with malignancy at the areas previously treated. Many found spots at other locations and did the oligometastatic treatment successfully. But I know at least two survivors of this forum that radiated the same area of the SRT safely. I do not know what kind of consequences they can expect to occur in the future.

I hope you report again about the decisions taken by your team at the UCFS. In my opinion one should consider the quality of life not just the means for cure.

Best wishes in your continuing journey.

Thinking of you.

VGama

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hey VGama...Yes, amen to the quality of life and it appears you've done well in that area... I'll share what the committee recommends  with all.... as always, thank you for your input and time

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

April 12, 2021 PROCEDURE AND FINDINGS:

The patient was placed on left lateral decubitus position. A lubricated endo-fire transrectal probe was introduced in the rectum, and serial transverse and longitudinal scannings of the prostatic fossa were obtained. The anastomosis was visualized. There is hyperechoic tissue noted measuring 1.98 cc compatible with PSMA PET results

 

 

IMPRESSION:

1.    

Digital rectal exam revealed no palpable nodule in the prostatic fossa.

2.    

There is hypoechoic tissue noted behind the right vesicoureteral junction measuring 1.98 cc compatible with PSMA PET positive lesion

3.    

Doppler study does not show any hypervascularity.

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010
It appears that my third treatment in 13 years might be branchtherapy since the area has been radiated...
 
Findings: 1. An isoechoic lesion roughly 1.5 cm in diameter posterior lateral to the right trigone is noted.
2. 1st marker placed within the lesionproximally
3. 2nd marker placed within the lesiondistally
4. 3rd marker placed distal to the lesion
Procedure: The patient was brought to the cystoscopy suite and laid in decubitus position. Digital rectal examination was performed and anesthetic ointment was applied. An ultrasound probe was passed gently into the rectum and biplanar sonography was performed, with findings as above. 2 biopsy cores were taken from the lesion.3 gold fiducial markers were then placed under ultrasound guidance, and locations verified as noted above. The patient tolerated to procedure well.
Intraoperative complications: none
EBL: minimal
Specimens:none
Disposition: The patient was advised to maintain a high fluid intake and to call or go the emergency department for any fevers over 101F.
 
The plan will likely be HDR, followed by ureteral reimplant in the event of stricture; alternative would be surgical resection and reimplant.
 
PLAN:

 

-Follow up visit to discuss further treatment planswith the biopsy result
VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,

I wonder if you are saying that they will treat the spot metastasis with Luneray needle-catheters (brachytherapy style). This is used to treat cancer in bladder tissues. The procedure is lesser invasive as it delivers the radiation at the spot avoiding the typical collateral damages causes in external beam radiation therapies (EBRT).

This kind of "needle-catheters" procedure is a very innovative way in delivering radiation to identified malignancies in soft tissues. In your case they have already placed fiducial markers (to guide the insertion of the needles via a X-ray machine), but the intervention will only be done after microscopic analyses of the biopsy samples taken this time. I think that if the samples confirm PCa then they will advance with the therapy eliminating the bandit for good.

I hope you are successful. The procedure would help in proving that oligometastatic treatment is here to stay as a valid sequential therapy to be done after failed RP and/or RT and before one is considered systemic.

I believe you are in good hands. The team at UCSF is super. They are looking at the best for you. Congratulations for deciding in advancing forwards with what we discussed previously. I would love to have the same opportunity but I do not live in the USA.

Thanks for the update. I will wait to read your next report.

Best wishes.

VGama

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

VGama....yes, my surgeon is telling me this could be the better path based on my situation.  A couple of complications could be a potential blocking of  my right ureter due to the radiation scaring, which he would unblock with a balloon (minor surgery) or could require a reattached of my ureter higher up on my bladder...or worse case the radiation doesn't eradicate the cancer and he had to try and cut out the cancer, remove a piece of my bladder and reattach my ureter to my bladder with surgery...at the end of the day, having choices are a blessing... the only thing I don't like is the 4 months of lupron with branchtherapy... as always,, thank you for your feedback 

 

eonore
Posts: 109
Joined: Jun 2017

Hilton,

I really want to thank you for sharing your journey with us.  I hope that this innovative approach does the trick!  Your case also shows how important it is to treat at a top notch institution.

Eric

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Eric...everyone of us have a story to tell.  This site has been a great place for information and relationships...being treated at a teaching hospital is something I would recommend.  I've been cut, poisoned (lupron), radiated and blessed to be radiated again...If it weren't for VGama sharing a study with me, I never would have called UCSF to ask about a newer treatment...if I hadn't, I wouldn't known of my current complications and in process for a new treatment...as we all know, choices are good news in the cancer journey...you are also your best and biggest advocate..all the best in your journey...

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010



FINAL PATHOLOGIC DIAGNOSIS

"Right perivseical", biopsy: Fibroadipose tissue with focal scarring
fibrosis, peripheral nerve and atrophic skeletal muscle, no carcinoma.



COMMENT:
Some of the stromal fibroblasts show slightly nucleomegaly and smudgy
chromatin that may represent radiation effect. In any event, no
carcinoma is identified.




Specimen(s) Received
A:Right perivseical biopsy


Clinical History
Relevant History per APeX: 66 old male with a history of prostate cancer
in 2009 (no prior pathology reviewed at UCSF) s/p RARP in 2010 revealing
4+3+5 adenocarcinoma pT3bN0 and salvage RT in 2015 now with a recurrent
1.5 cm nodule at the right ureteral orifice.


Gross Description
The case is received in formalin labeled with the patient's name,
medical record number and additionally labeled "right perivesicle
biopsy," and consists of two 0.1 cm-thick cores of tan tissue. The
cores each have a length of 1.7 cm and 2.4. The specimen is entirely
submitted in cassette A1. (rfg)

The diagnosis was rendered using whole slide digital images of the glass
slides on Philips' FDA-approved (21 CFR 864.3700) PIPS-based platform
validated at UCSF.



Diagnosis based on microscopic and/or gross examinations. Final
Diagnosis made by attending pathologist following review of all
pathology slides (histochemical quality is satisfactory). The attending
pathologist has reviewed all dictations, including prosector work, and
preliminary interpretations performed by any resident involved in the
case and performed all necessary edits before signing the final report.

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Hilton,
This is a very interesting finding (negative for carcinoma) and surely I want to know the opinion of the doctor you are meeting on june 30.

I  see your situation similar to mine when my doctor told me that the exam didn't find cancer so that they would not radiate.
I had a F18-choline PET/CT exam in January 2018 that found “viable neoplasia tissue” at the prostate bed, the fossa (which was part of my SRT of 2006). There were also two inguinal lymph nodes on the left that expressed some SUV but thought to be inflammation. The SUV at the fossa was at 10 minutes 3.4 which increased to SUV 5.5 at 80 minutes in the whole body image.
Typically, SUV of 10 regards cancer. SUV of 4.0 regards cells with anomalies. The meaning of viable neoplasia tissue refers to an abnormal growth of tissue caused by the rapid division of cells that have undergone some form of mutation.

Accordingly, my doctor wanted to do a biopsy to confirm cancer but  due to the evidence of scar tissues, identified in a cystoscopy and a colonocopy, he, instead preferred to do another exam this time with the more specific 68Ga PSMA-PET.
Unfortunately this exam was negative to cancer providing different conclusions to the F18-CH PET.
Both exams were negative to far metastases or bone lesions.

I wonder what will be the opinion of the physicians at UCFS.
Thanks for sharing this report. It is helping me in understanding better recurrence cases like ours.

Best
VGama

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi VGama...yes, no carcinoma in the biopsy tissue samples but have mutated cell growth...interesting for sure...maybe, I'm becoming the Green Hulk or something from the SBT radiation...I'll have a hard Kombucha and ponder this...what are some good questions to ask my team on my June 30th visit?  Thank you for your continued nterest...

 

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

I understand your disappointment for the negative biopsy.  Without a target you  cannot aim a therapy with a definite purpose.

I suggest that you discuss about the PET scan results. Your PSMA-PET was done when the PSA was  0.7 ng/ml which could have been a cause for false negatives (too low for detection). The biopsy indicates that the scan provided a false-positive at the bladder area but that could be expected to occur for the urinary excretion of the radiotracer at the time of the imaging section. 

In fact I wonder what was the radiopharmaceutical used in your scan. My isotope was the 68-galium infused with PSMA (68Ga-PSMA). This is known to be lesser reliable in areas closer to the bladder if the images are taken later (60 minutes) after injection of the dye as it will be seen in the urine track. Better than the 68galium is the F18-PSMA isotope exactly because it can prevent this problem as it takes longer to excretion. 

Please provide a copy of the article in this link to the people attending your next meeting.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31253741

What could be the possibilities for exiting false-negatives at other places?

Can they wait and repeat the exam when the PSA is above 1.0 ng/ml?

You shouldn't lose this opportunity of being treated at such high level facility and team of doctors. Try convincing them that you really want to be treated and can wait  before engaging in ADT, if such is required. 

I wish you the best.

VG

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010
  • Hi VGama....my scan mix was gallium PSMA (Ga-68) and 
  • iohexoL (OMNIPAQUE)...my attending surgeon was surprised it wasn't in my closest lymph node(s) after the scan and I'm forwarding your study to his nurse.  This beast continues to be full of surprises and yes, a little disappointed it's  location hasn't been pinpointed...I'm not concerned about losing my medical team...I've got them baffled at the moment...thanks for the input and kind words...all the best to all of us-BDH
     
MEJB
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2021

Hi Hilton, 

 

reading your thread with vgamma proves to be very interesting. can you elaborate on your experience with lupron and why your stated (poisoned)

appreciate any insight. 

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

Hi MEJB...to date, I've only taken a course of Lupron once  for 5 months in 2015.  It personally took me close to two years to feel "normal" again...in my small circle, we refer to them as "Frankenstein" drugs and I don't believe anyone would voluntarily take them...I might be taking another course soon and will, but would prefer not to go through the hot flashes, loss of energy and weight gain I experienced on the last go around...there are trade offs for some of us out there but at the end of the day, quality of life...thanks for your interest and good fortune in your journey...

bdhilton
Posts: 795
Joined: Jan 2010

VGama...yes, another biopsy is being scheduled and they are pretty sure the cancer is there  but without a positive this next biopsy there will be no moving forward with anything but lupron...not to offen in life when you hope for a positive....

VascodaGama's picture
VascodaGama
Posts: 3367
Joined: Nov 2010

Yes, this time we expected to hear the freaking word "positive" but were disillusioned with the negative conclusion. I wonder the area where they will bore. The two negative cores should have been sufficient. Interesting that the pathologist correlated the findings to radiation scars  (smudgy chromatin)  that was also the opinion of my doctor about the tissue at the prostate bed identified in my F18 choline PET as positive to malignancy. 

Let's wait for the results and talk about the ADT details if you have to go through it. 

Best wishes. 

VG

Subscribe to Comments for "Advanced Cancer and waiting..."