YANA - YOU ARE NOT ALONE NOW

PROSTATE CANCER SUPPORT SITE

 

 

GOLD

Terry and his wife Anthea were living in Kalk Bay, South Africa when he was diagnosed in August 1996: they now live in Melbourne, Australia. He was 54 years old - said to be "young" and his initial numbers were PSA 7.2 ng/ml, Gleason 3+3= 6 Stage T2bN0M0. Here is his story:

Like most people, the diagnosis sent me and my wife into a bit of a spin, especially as the local urologist didn't even mention that there was more than one option for treatment. He had me booked in for a Radical Prostatectomy before we knew what was going on. And he sent me for tests which, from what I have now learned, were absolutely unnecessary. My already low opinion of the medical profession sank another couple of degrees.

Let me just qualify that - I don't think that most doctors, as individuals, are bad or incompetent people. I just think that the paradigm in which they operate precludes them from dealing with their patients as people, not a collection of symptoms. It also makes them extremely conservative and closed to anything new.

When I was diagnosed, I was just about to set off for a trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea, returning to South Africa through London, so I had plenty of time to read on those long flights. By the time I got back home I was pretty well convinced that RP was not for me and although it wasn't the worst option - chemotherapy takes that prize in my book - there were better ones.

One of the books I read was on the Bristol Centre in UK which dealt with matters such as diet, meditation, visualisation, faith and so on. Much of this tied in with the material which an old colleague had given me and it made a lot of sense to me and to my wife. So we made the decision to start to change our diet and our habits - not with a huge lurch, but steadily. The main issues identified at that stage [apart from stopping smoking, which we had done some years previously] were basically those listed below, although I have expanded the original list to include other aspects which we added as we gathered more information.

It represents my current regimen:

   reduce intake of meat, specifically red meat, ideally becoming vegetarians;
   reduce intake of dairy products and fats;
   cut down or out irritants such as coffee and spirits;
   pay more attention to dietary requirements – more fruit, fresh vegetables etc;
   take vitamin and mineral supplements – Vitamin C being a major item; take anti-oxidants;
   increase exercise levels [I walk my two dogs over the mountains behind us for a minimum of an hour a day and usually longer] and to lose weight [I lost about 15 kg, but I needed to];
   meditate and “weed the spiritual path”;
   reduce stress;
   create a visualisation of the disease and its effects;
   take some prostate-specific herbs, such as Essiac.

Simplistically, my whole approach is based on the premise that in normal circumstances, the body's immune system and other mechanisms will deal adequately with cancer. The diagnosis of the cancer is an indicator that the system has failed and it is therefore important to create an environment where the system can get back to do the work it is designed for.

I have found the material about visualisation, which recurs in so much material dealing with cancer therapies, interesting. In my case, I relate my body and my cancer to an overgrown garden - probably because the house we are now in had such a garden when we bought it three years ago. It takes a lot of hard work to rectify an overgrown garden - and a lot of time. Persistence is the name of the game.

That is how I see my onslaught on my disease - there is no doubt that the spontaneous remission of some cancers can take place in a very short time.There is a good deal of anecdotal material which tells of such regressions occurring overnight, and these are supported by a more limited number of medical testimonies. But because prostate cancer is a slow growing tumour, I do not expect it to retreat any quicker than it grew. It is difficult to find any reported cases of remission of prostate cancer but, as I said to a urologist in Houston, this is because the average time from diagnosis to removal, in the U.S. is six weeks - hardly time for the remission to take place!! He wasn't really amused. Although I had been prejudiced against an RP with my early reading, I only arrived at the final conclusion that I would pursue this alternative path over a period of some months. Initially my research was on the basic information on the disease and the treatments available. The "hard copy" statistics I found at first seemed to support the "golden standard" of RP surgery.

But once I got onto the Internet and started digging up more up-to-date information, there were some indications that these figures might not be as accurate as they pretended to be. It soon became apparent that they were badly skewed to support the medical contention that RP was really the only option. In fact the more I read, the more I came to the conclusion that there was very little difference in survival rates [which I think are much more positive than mortality rates!] between the various treatments, doing nothing or not having cancer! In fact I found one paper which gave better survival rates over a ten-year period for men diagnosed with cancer than for the general population of men the same age. That seemed fairly encouraging, especially as survival rates were of the order of 80% - 90%. I even visited, in this exploration, sites which gave an opposing view of alternative medicine. I felt I had to look at the other point of view - anyone interested can visit the Quackwatch website (to be found here) which is run by a retired doctor, and form their own opinion as to the value of the information there.

I must say that it has not been easy following the path we have chosen.

There is very little support for (Watchful Waiting/Positive Onslaught While Watching) from friends and relatives and virtually none from the medical profession, although I eventually found an oncologist who said he thought it might not be a bad idea, and a holistic doctor who helped in the early stages. But even subscribers to support and chat sites (on the Internet) still have some reservations and disagree with what I am doing. So it is a lonely path and, naturally, I ask myself often if it is wise to continue, especially when the odd ache or pain strikes - things which one would normally take in one's stride as merely a function of growing a little older, or having exerted oneself too much, loom into my thoughts as "Is this a spread?"

But apart from that, mentally and physically I am better than I have been for years and I enjoy each day more than ever before. A guest on an Oprah Winfrey show I saw years ago said that it was an unfortunate aspect of life that everyone needed a life-threatening experience to really appreciate how good life is. I agree with that!! Prayer and faith in the Supreme Being and your body's ability to cure itself are enormously potent tools, I believe.

[Update 26 February 2001]


It is over four years since I was diagnosed in August 1996. I am glad that I made my decision not to have conventional treatment. If I were to present for an examination today, I would not be diagnosed as having prostate cancer. I say this because my PSA has stabilised at around 5.00 ng/ml, which I regard as normal for a man of my age with BHP. My free PSA has been consistently at about 30% in recent tests - up from 20% at the first occasion when this test became available. My last DRE was normal - apart from the BHP.

I cannot claim to be cured because there is no definition of cure for the path I have taken and I am not sure that any doctor would even say that I was in remission. But I am in better health than I was when I was diagnosed and there are no signs of progression of the disease. That's good enough for me. My garden is also looking much better and I have just about eliminated the weeds from the lawn - not by weed-killer, but by getting the grass so healthy it will not allow the weeds to grow.

I have learned a good deal in my journey so far. I am more convinced than ever that the majority of men (especially in the United States) who are treated for prostate cancer by radical prostatectomy and radiation do not benefit from their treatment in the long term. I am not alone in this view. There are many organisations and medical people who also feel that way. There are some indications that there is a movement away from treatment which is too aggressive. One of the leading institutions in the US has defined what they call "insignificant" tumours and suggested that they be watched for further development rather than treated immediately. The definition is:

  • 1. Nonpalpable

  • 2. Stage T1c

  • 3. Percent free PSA 15 or greater

  • 4. Gleason less than 7

  • 5. Organ confined

  • 6. Less than three needle cores involved with none greater than 50% tumor.

Another very important issue which is not properly understood by many medical people is the inaccuracy of the PSA test. Whilst this remains the best indicator of anything going wrong with the prostate, care should be taken in accepting a single PSA reading as the results can change significantly in a short time for no apparent reason. I undertook a small experiment in July of 2000 which can be viewed here.

In this experiment I tested my blood for 28 consecutive days whilst trying to keep the PSA levels stable. The lowest reading was 4.50 and the highest 6.00 and they were two days apart. That was an increase of 33%. Three days later the reading had fallen back to 4.60, a reduction of 25%.

There is no doubt in my mind that the number of men who need to take immediate action is very small. This does not mean that such men should do nothing, but it does mean that they have time to research their options and to decide what is best for them.

[Update 20 September 2001] Current Age = 59; Current PSA = 5.74.

Current Treatment = WW. Now it's five years down the line and all seems still to be going well. Although I was confident of this, my darling wife, with her Master’s Degree in Worry and Concern asked me to get a checkup with a specialist.

So I went to see a leading urologist who very sportingly agreed to examine me without the benefit of seeing my medical history. After completing the examination, including the DRE (Digital Rectal Examination), he said that he could feel nothing, apart from the BPH (Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia) which was diagnosed 10 years ago.

He suggested I get a PSA test, so I gave him my latest one which I had done a fortnight before the consultation. It was 5.74 ng/ml and had a free PSA component of 48%. The total PSA was within my “normal” range and the free PSA was excellent. He was amazed to then discover that I had been diagnosed five years earlier and after discussing what I had been doing since my diagnosis, his only comment was that I should keep on doing what I was doing.

I had intended to do that anyway, but it was nice to achieve SILVER status on this site and get official confirmation at the same time!!

[Update November 2002]

There is not much to say in this update. I had my annual checkup in September. My total PSA came in at 5.88 ng/ml almost the same as it was last year and my free PSA was 38%, down a little from last year, but still in the high range.

So, I'll carry on doing what I'm doing - seems to be working so far.

[Update October 2003]

Not much to report. Annual DRE still negative. PSA up a tad to 6.25 ng/ml with free PSA stable at 38%. I had a business trip to the Toronto in September and was very tempted to go and see Dr Fred Lee with his colour doppler diagnostics. I decided against it in the end, mainly on the basis of cost, which would have been very high for me. I also felt that it was unlikely that he would be able to tell me anything without another biopsy - and I do not intend to have another. So, I'll just carry on doing what I'm doing.

This year I have set up a Watchful Waiting/Conservative Managment site. It is still very much in the course of construction, but there is quite a bit of interesting material on the site. You'll find it at Prostate Cancer Watchful Waiting . If you do call on the site, I would be very interested to have any comments, especially if you are researching this optional approach.

[Update June 2004]

The BPH (Benign Prostate Hyperplasia) with which I was diagnosed in 1992 started playing up last year. I think it was because I had become a little slack on all the issues I think are important in maintaining good health. We had been travelling a good deal, including 5 weeks and 5,000 miles in the US and I had been neglecting my exercises and my better eating habits. As a result I had put on a bit of weight and was not as fit as I had been. I think this often goes with the territory if you are on Watchful Waiting/ Conservative Management - as the years go by with no signs of progression, you start to revert to the old bad habits you learned in the 50+ years prior to diagnosis.

Anyway, be that as it may, I was having many problems, mainly with nocturia and finally swallowed my pride and went to see my uro, who suggested we try Flomax. That didn't do much good and although I went back to my previous regimen, lost weight, ate properly, exercised etc, it seemed that the BPH had got ahead of the curve, because it didn't respond as it had done before. My PSA also showed an increase, going up to 8.55 ng/ml, although there was still a free PSA of 42%. This all created a bit of a quandary, as we are off to the island of St Helena next month (five days each way by ship and seven days on the island) and the way things were going I was concerned I might have a serious issue that might be difficult to deal with, given the limited facilities available.

The uro and I kicked around several ideas before he thought to do an ultra-sound scan of the prostate. It was pretty big - he estimated about 180 gm - but this had not been apparent because the growth was upward into the bladder and thus could not be felt by the DREs I had been having. So I bit the bullet and agreed to a TURP (Transurethral Resection of the Prostate), which I had last Thursday. Although it is early days, everything seems to be going well and, as most men who have had this procedure will tell you, it is pretty cool to have a stream like a young man again!

One of the reasons that I opted for the TURP rather than some form of ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy), which would have shrunk the gland, was that it gave me the opportunity to get a good sample of material from the gland to see what had been happening these past eight years since diagnosis. My uro also took four large needle biopsies of the peripheral zone while he was at it. I had the histology report faxed to me yesterday and although I will be seeking some expansion on the information given, basically it states that the Gleason Scores on the tissue examined is 3+3=6 (which was my original diagnosis) and there is about 20% of the material from the TURP that contains evidence of invasive primary adenocarcinoma.

It seems to me that this shows evidence of some growth over the years, since the volume is probably higher now than it was, but no evidence of increasing aggressiveness. If that is the case, then I'll continue what I have been doing, accepting that although my regimen may not have been successful in causing the tumour to regress, it may well have slowed it down.

[Update January 2005]

Well, I may have to change my plan after all!

I say that because my PSA results post TURP are disappointing. The first was in September. I had hoped that it would be significantly lower than the June result, but it came in almost the same at 7.54 ng/ml with a free PSA of 41%. Not too bad, but not too good. My uro said that there could still be an effect from the procedure.

The next PSA test was scheduled for three months later and I had that in early January 2005. That did give me a shock because it had almost doubled to 14.72 ng/ml. The free PSA figure had also dropped markedly, to 28%, the lowest ratio for some years and only a little above the January 2000 number. I always advise people to check any unusual PSA number by having another test, so I did that a week later. The second test came in slightly lower than the first at 12.99 ng/ml with a free PSA of 34%, the equivalent of my long term average number.

This has left me in something of a quandry. I intend to take a course of antibiotics first, on the basis that there may be some infection. After all, there were small bits of prostate gland coming out with my urine for some months after the TURP. One of those lodged in the gland may be causing a problem. If, after that there is another significant increase, then I will have to assume that the disease has metastasised and take appropriate action. Just what that will be will depend on the advice I get over the next month or two.

[Update April 2005]

I took the antibiotic but it hasn't prodcued the desired result. My latest PSA, taken on 19 April was 17.44 ng/ml fPSA 4.93 ng/ml 28%.

So, what does this all mean? Darned if I know if it is an indication of failure of primary treatment, which sees me with metastasis on the way, or if it is still a lingering infection. I have had an odd feeling, not pain so much as pressure, in my groin since the op which I have mentioned to the surgeon and which he carefully puts in his notes, but doesn't comment on. Could it be that or is that wishful thinking?.

The points that puzzle me are:

1. My understanding of increases in PSA associated with metastasis is that they rise progressively: as a corollary to that variations - rises and falls - in PSA values are often associated with infection or disease. In my case an initial doubling time of three months from June to September might reasonably predict a PSA of about 30 ng/ml in April, yet the actual result is 17.44 ng/ml - an increase of 18%. Does this mean that it is more or less likely that the increase is due to underlying infection than metastasis?

2. Although most studies of fPSA relate to total PSA levels under 10 ng/ml, there are some European studies that indicate that fPSA levels are still valid up to 20 ng/ml. There has been considerable fluctuation in the fPSA ratio over the past nine months and in fact the total fPSA has increased from 3.07 ng/ml in September to 4.93 ng/ml in April. Does this mean anything? Normally fPSA ratios at the levels recorded are indicative of non-tumour expression.

I'll be talking this all over with the oncologist I consulted eight years ago, who went into research and is now back in practice, if he and I can find time to get together! In a typical example of Murphy's Law operating, this little potential crises of mine has arisen at a time when we have the house on the market prior to our re-location to Australia and when I have no less than three business (and pleasure!) trips planned which will see us at home for only six weeks in the next four months - and during 10 days of those six weeks we'll have overseas guests staying with us. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Carpe Diem is still something I believe in.

[Update June 2005]

The May PSA was up again, a little, to 20.44 ng/ml, but then so was the fPSA - to 29%! I went along to the oncologist who suggested we start with a bone scan, which would be testing the worst case scenario first. I had the scan a couple of days ago - great improvemnt in comfort factor since the first one in 1996, but taking even longer. the good news was - no change since the last scan, no sign of metastasis.

The oncologist feels the nex step should be a CAT scan, even though these are not great at identifying tumours. I'll do that, with his approval, when I get back from the Australian trip at the end of July.

[Update August 2005]

Well, I'm back from Australia. We bought a nice townhouse there and have sold our house here in South Africa and all being well, we should be on our way in mid-October. Of course there is a tremendous amount to do - moving house is never easy, but the difficulties multiply when you're moving countries as well.

In all the rush and bustle I only got my PSA test done last week and regrettably it is up again, to 24.9 ng/ml, still with a free PSA of 6.47 ng/ml or 26%. Clearly action is required now and I will be seeing my oncologist as soon as I can get an appointment. I am also seeking advice from all my cyberpals on the Internet, but unless anyone can show me why it would be foolish to do so, I intend embarking on a 'DES Lite' regimen.

DES is diethylstilbestrol, a form of oestrogen and there have been many successful reports, including formal studies, of its success in dealing with prostate cancer over the years. It is no longer prescribed in most countries. This is said to be because of a serious side effect in some of the men in the studies who suffered from thrombo-emoloc side effects.

There were indeed some such side effects reported, however that was on a dose higher than I would take, since the low dose treatment appears to be equally effective. Cynics believe that the main reason that this treatment was stopped was because it is so cheap, especially compared with other ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy) drugs.

I'll keep you'all posted if and when there is anything to report.

[Update December 2005]

We are settled here in Australia now and I finally saw a urologist on Monday and an oncologist on Tuesday after getting a PSA test - result 26.5 ng/ml virtually the same as in August. Unfortunately the oncologist is a radiation oncologist, not a medical oncologist. Both recommend Zoladex on its own to reduce gland volume followed by 3D conformal External Beam Radiation. The urologist suggesting HDR Brachytherapy in addition. Both recommend then a three year course of Zoladex. Neither would consider DES or ADT3 as an option saying that there was insufficient evidence to support such an approach.

The crux of the matter is simply this, to summarise the oncologist's advice:

If I was ten years older (73) he would agree with my view that we could keep an eye on things for signs of progression i.e. only start treatment when symptoms manifested themselves or when the annual examination - DRE, MRI and bone scan demonstrated clear metastases. On this basis he felt that the disease could probably be managed for at least another ten years which would se me through to the current standard life expectancy. But because I am 'so young' at 63 he wouldn't like to consider this option.

Now this opens up all sorts of issues, not least being the fact that throughout my life, none of the predictions made by the medical profession about my various injuries and diseases has proved to be accurate. The latest, and most serious, in this long line was when I was diagnosed in 1996. The diagnosing urologist indicated a life expectancy of about five years; one US specialist I consulted (amongst many others) told me that I was toying with my life if I didn't have an immediate RP and went so far as to call my brother, whom he knew, to tell him that without surgery I would not last three years - maybe five years at the most.

So, why should I now believe the latest predictions for the outcome of this notoriously unpredictable disease? If the disease might be managed for 10 years from manifestation of symptoms or confirmation of metastasis, why could it not be managed for 15 or 20 years from now? And in any event will I be around in 10, 15 or 20 year's time? When I first arrived in Australia in 1987 and had a medical for life assurance the view was that because I had various tropical diseases - bilharzia, malaria, hepatitis plus a couple of others - I was a 'non-standard' life and I would probably fall short of standard life expectancy by about ten years. Hey - that makes my expiration date about ten years from now!!

As I've said before over the years, I'm not recommending my line of thought and action to anyone else. Merely expressing my somewhat contrarian views. I'm going to have a PSA in three months and then if it is still up or rising significantly I am going to speak to a medical oncologist about the possibility of hormone treatment.

[Update January 2006]

Just a slight change of focus!! I have been developing some breathing problems over the past few months. Nothing too drastic, or so I thought. A bit of shortness of breath when walking with the dogs up hills and, more annoyingly, waking up in the early hours of the night feeling I was choking. I put the former down to a loss of fitness during our move and the latter to the various stresses of the move.

However, things were not getting any better and I finally went around to see the GP who said I had an irregular heartbeat and prescribed a series of heart tests, scheduled for three weeks time. That night I had a dreaful time and really thought my last days might have come as I battled for breath. Back to the GP, he ordered a chest X-ray and an ECG and prescribed an asthma "puffer" to help me breathe.

By chance an old pal called later in the day. He was our GP when we were first married 35 plus years ago and recently retired. He was alarmed at my voice and asked me what was going on. I told him and his immediate reaction was that my wife should get me around to the ER at the local hospital as soon as possible. I thought it was an over-reaction, but did as I was told. The staff at the ER didn't take it lightly, admitting me, putting me on oxygen and getting down to the first in a long series of tests. Ten days later I concluded all the tests and bed rest and was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation and idiopathic cardiomyopathy, moderate to severe. To put that in lay terms, the top of my heart is beating in an irregular fashion, causing a strain on the rest of the apparatus and there is damage (cause unknown) to my left ventricle, leaving me with an enlarged heart that doesn't pump too well.

I'm told the outlook is pretty good as long as maintain the medical regimen that has been set, which of course I will do, but I must say it came as a bit of a surprise, since i didn't see myself as a candidate for heart failure!

As soon as I get this dealt with I'll be back to my PCa related issues, but first things first!

[Update March 2006]

With tooth and heart problems now under control, I finally got back to the PCa issue and had a PSA test last week. I was really curious to see how it would turn out because of what an old 'cyberpal' of mine, Al, told me a month or two back. He recounted how his PSA had started rising. like me, he was not convinced that the rise was due to his diagnosed tumour and, most coincidentally of all, he had a periodontal disease.

Now I haven't mentioned my tooth problem before this, but a most peculiar set of circumstances arose soon after we got to Australia. My incisors and three of my molars were found to be rotten to the core. This was a shock to me because I had seen my dentist and his hygienist regularly in South Africa and in fact had a full inspection the week before we left. And yet a mere eight weeks later I had this problem. I saw an escalating series of dentists, each more specialised, but none of them could tell me how this damage had occurred - all were in agreement that it was not possible for it to have happened in eight weeks, despite the evidence to the contrary. Truly, medical paradigms are hard to overcome. Nothing could be done with the Christmas holidays fast approaching - Australia closes down from about the middle of December until the middle of January - but we agreed that the teeth would have to go early in January. Of course I was in hospital then with my heart failure, but I had the molars out as soon as I could after my discharge.

Why this long and apparently irrelevant story? Well, I am not sure that it is irrelevant because, with the teeth out, my PSA has dropped dramatically from 26.8 ng/ml in December last year to 17.4 ng/ml - almost 10 ng/ml. And this is virtually what happened to Al, whose PSA was not quite as high as mine, but which halved after his tooth extractions. Maybe a coincidence; maybe the antibiotics that we each had to take for the dental work; maybe the effect of the medication for my heart condition; whatever the reason, I'll take a falling PSA against a rising PSA any time.

I have a new GP who is happy with my decision to not pursue conventional treatment at this time. He and I wrote a Health Plan this morning and the line regarding PCa says: "To keep living and let another disease be our worry." That's not quite what I suggested. I said I wanted to keep living until I died of something else, but I guess that was a bit too direct for the doctor!

In my tenth year, and earning Gold status on this site. I reckon I could meet the first of my old goals - to live ten years after diagnosis - in August this year.

[Update June 2006]

Time for another PSA test.

As I said before, I was hoping for another fall, with my cardiomyopathy and periodontal problems apparently under control. But it was not to be. The number that came in was 24.3 ng/ml - about the same as it was in July last year.

Regrettably, although a Free PSA test was ordered, the lab did not do it. My new MD didn't notice and, as he freely admits that he knows nothing about fPSA, he didn't agree to getting another test done just yet, so I guess I will have to wait until August or September.

Until then, I'll carry on carrying on.

[Update August 2006]

Latest test is a bit disappointing, coming in at 27.4, just a tad above December last year. Once again, although a free PSA was ordered, it wasn't delivered. This time I queried it with the lab who initially said they didn't do fPSA tests with tPSA levels over 20 ng/ml because there was no value in that. When I pointed out that there were studies that demonstrated a value, they changed their tune and said their machines couldn't do a fPSA number if the total was over 20 ng/ml. Time to look for a new lab, I think.

Anyway, no dramatic change = no dramatic change in protocol. More doing what i've been doing - and concentrate on getting the heart right.

I celebrate the first of my major targets this month - 10 years of survival post diagnosis. Ring them bells!!

[Update February 2007]

It looks as if I won't be able to depend on the heart problem 'curing' my prostate cancer after all. All reports from the cardiologist are that the regimen I am on has produced a semblance of normality so that I can get on with my life.

The story on the prostate cancer side is not quite as good. My October 2006 reading was 31.4 ng/ml and I was resigned to the fact that I had should get another bone scan. This had in fact been my plan from a couple of years back - to have a scan every two years, but the rise in PSA focused me on the issue. I thought I'd put it off until some time in the New Year - perhaps after my February PSA (which incidentally was 30.9 ng/ml)

That casual plan changed somewhat and I must say I I got a bit of a fright over the Xmas period when I suddenly developed a very severe pain in my back and pelvis, so bad I could hardly sit and found it very difficult to sleep without very strong prescription painkillers. I kept waiting for it to get better - I have a history of back problems and my hips have been giving a bit of trouble for some years now. I had been working in my son's business, bending over a worktop and had also started playing lawn bowls, all of which may have acerbated my problems.

But I didn't get better and as I was running out of painkillers I had to go along to the doctor and bite the bullet. I really thought this might be it - the beginning of the last few laps in my marathon. By the time I had the scans the pain had subsided (and it has never returned, touch wood) but the one scan showed an area 'suspicious for metastasis' on my spine. It is near some other old damage and I think it may well refer to that, but decided to see an oncologist to get a second opinion (the first being mine!!). He said after a brief examination that he thought it might well be a metastasized spot, but that it wasn't enough to worry about in the absence of any symptoms. Just what I felt, so we have agreed to have another scan in three or four months and if there is a significant change may consider some form of ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy). Essentially he believes, as do I, that the treatment of symptomatic disease is more important than pre-empting a potential problem that may not arise.

He was quite shocked when I asked him if ADT would be a better option than orchidectomy (the removal of the testicles). He said this was because men shied away from the very thought. I have never understood that. I know that the rationale for ADT is that it is reversible, and orchidectomy is not, but since ADT is a palliative therapy when it is not an adjuvant procedure, surely it will not be stopped long enough for the side effects to be reversed? And does orchidectomy carry the same risks of heart failure and diabetes that the recent Mayo study highlighted as a potential problem with ADT? !

[Update June 2007]

Well, what to do? Where to go?

I have just returned from my annual trip to St Helena Island stopping off in Cape Town to see family and friends (you can only get to St Helena by sea and the main sailings are to and from Cape Town) and in Kuala Lumpur because we hadn't visited that fine city before.

My appointment with my doctor was four days after we got back so I had my PSA done prior to that and wasn't too surprised to find that it was up a bit again - 35.0 ng/ml - after all the travelling, changes in diet etc. Given that it was 31.4 ng/ml in October last year and down a bit after that (30.9 ng/ml in February and 30.4 ng/ml in April) it seems to be still following the same kind of pattern that it has for some years now, although the graph produced using the PSA calculator looks a little frightening! Still and all, the calculated doubling time is 3.8 years and on that basis I will be 73 before hitting the 100 ng/ml mark, so all in all it looks a if there is a reasonable chance I'll hit my 20 year survival target.

I still haven't had the second bone scan. I really don't like nuclear medicine - the thought of ingesting radioactive material just isn't one I fancy. I guess I'll have to bit the bullet sooner or later, but am investigating a new type of scan that may be available from the local hospital to see if it will be more accurate.

Still no symptoms: still feeling as good as a man of my age might expect to feel!

[Update July 2007]

Well, I finally got around to the second scan after investigating the possibility of a PET scan. The general view was that this would not show any more information than a normal bone scan plus CT scan would reveal.

The radiologist was very helpful in explaining the bone scan, although when we saw the oncologist and had a look at the radiologists report, it seemed a bit contradictory to me. The Body Scan states "Unchanged since December 2006. In particular the metabolically active T10 lesion has a similar appearance." This reflects what the radiologist told me after the scan. The CT scan report however - the same radiologist - says": The right-sided posterior verterbral 8 mm sclerotic lesion has increased in size to 3.3 cm in diameter."

The explanation was that the 'unchanged' report in the bone scan meant that there was no sign of any other spots since December, whilst the CT scan showed definite sign of growth, and significant growth at that, in the identified lesion. The onco feels that it certainly seems likely to be a metastasis and most probably accounts for the rise in PSA - which has doubled since May 2005 - and I reckon that is most likely so. He suggested that I speak to a radiologist about the wisdom of radiating this lesion before we consider ADT (Androgen Deprivation Therapy). The onco suggest a radiologist because he tends to work outside the square and he felt that a referral to a more staid organisation or radiologist might result in a refusal to radiate an asymptomatic lesion.

The radiologist was a very nice man and explained the position very clearly. His concern, which has not been clearly stated previously is that leaving the mass, which is still small, to grow could result in interference with the nerves in the spine with unfortunate effects. Whilst radiation was certainly a possibility and with the equipment they have here, which is world class, the risk of collateral damage is small, he felt that this would not be the most appropriate treatment for a number of reasons, all of which I understood and had to agree with.

So that effectively leaves me with the hormone therapy and since I believe now, after talking to a number of local doctors that there is no way I'll be able to have my preferred option of diethylstilboestrol (DES) or estradiol patches, I'll just have to go along with Zoladex. There are many possible side effects with ADT, although they don't affect all men to the same extent - one of which is depression which is what particularly that concerns me. Anyway I'm seeing the cardiologist tomorrow to see what he has to say about any potential problems with my heart medication. the oncologist says "no problem" but he ain't a cardiologist!!

Just to cheer ourselves up we booked on the best cruise I have ever seen - right around the Pacific Rim from Sydney to Sydney - 75 DAYS!! - next July.

[Update October 2007]

As is so often the case in life, the contemplation of the effects of ADT was considerably more worrying than the reality of the treatment - for me at least. I have had no serious side effects that I can notice. A bit of a tendency towards a feeling of sadness at times perhaps, but that's about it.

On the positive side, the first PSA test, three weeks or so after the first Zoladex shot showed a very satisfactory drop from 42.0 ng/ml to 12.4 ng/ml. That was encouraging and the second PSA test, two months after the treatment commenced has shown the PSA at 3.00 ng/ml.

My GP, who really doesn't have much of a clue about prostate cancer, or PSA always orders a free PSA test, which I'm happy to go along with as I am intrigued by what this might or might not show. On the latest results, my fPSA is 2.0 ng/ml! What do you make of that?

Next Zoladex shot is in a month's time. Stand by for reports on that!

 

[Update January 2008]

Well, had my second Zoladex shot, which stung a bit more than the first - maybe because I've gone on a full scale weight loss program and am now down 20 kg (say 44 lbs or a bit over 3 stone depending on your place of residence) so there isn't much fat to plant the depot.

My PSA in November was 1.20 ng/ml, which was pretty good going, but the December one got me into a bit of a state because it was 1.50 ng/ml. It was ridiculous of me to be concerned, because I know that that kind of variance is within the normal range of PSA tests, but as I have mentioned previously, I have periods of sadness - not quite depression - and was in the midst of one of these periods when I got the news. Added to that I had just read the abstract of a new study by Strum (but hadn't got a hold of the full report) that seemed to indicate that there was a substantial survival advantage for men who went below 0.05 ng/ml on ADT and I was a long way off that!

Of course once I got out of the black dog mood and once I read the full abstract, I realised that nothing had really changed and so waited patiently for my next PSA test, the results of which I got today - 0.60 ng/ml. That's more like it. Maybe I'll make it to twenty years after all - if the heart failure doesn't 'cure' me. It has been awfully hot here this summer - temperatures of up to 42C (that's about 108F for you non-metricated folk) and that really knocks me around - thank goodness for air-conditioning.

I'm having one more Zoladex shot next month and then, if there is another downward blip, I intend giving it a rest (with the blessing of my oncologist) to see what happens. Will let you know in due course.

I have just completed a chart showing my PSA over the past 11+ years. It shows graphically (literally!!) what has been happening. Here it is:

 

[Update March 2008]

A good result! Down to 0.20 ng/m just before my third (and last for the present) Zoladex shot. I'm going intermittent unless something really unusual happens.

[Update May 2008]

I was a bit disappointed with my latest PSA, which is still on 0.20 ng/m. I really thought i might get down to undetectable. Oh well! Can't win them all. My GP feels it is better to have another Zoladex shot, and I guess that's so - I'll be having that next week. I am having some slight side effects developing. I'm losing body hair, my skin is softer and I'm having difficulty in maintaining my weight. Hopefully that won't get worse.

We've had to can our planned cruise in July - hurt by the damage done in the financial markets, but instead we're planning to go to Italy in September. The son of old friends is getting married then so the idea is to go to the wedding then spend a couple of weeks just driving around wehrever the road takes us.

 

[Update August 2008]

Almost 12 years to the day, I got my latest PSA result - 0.17 ng/ml! It's amazing what a relief it still is after all these years to get the good result. And how ridiculous to be happy that it is lower than the last one, given the inaccuracy of the test. But I am.

I guess that's as low as it will go, bearing in mind I still have most of a very large prostate gland. Good enough to go Intermittent - and that's what I'll be telling the GP tomorrow when I see him. Even though he disagrees, Anthea and I had a good chat about the options and believe this is a good one for us.

With only four weeks to go before we leave for Italy, I have to get back to my Italian vocabulary lessons.

 

[Update December 2008]

 

We had a wonderful time in Italy. Drive 3,500 km over some very interesting roads. I thought the Italian drivers were by and large very good - they certainly know the width and length of their vehicles to the millimeter. We avoided all the large cities, with the exception of Venice, which we visited for the day because we were in the area, and spent our time in the country, admiring the scenery, enjoying the food and meetings some very nice people. Anyone interested in seeing my pictures can see them here: Italy 1 - Siena, Pisa, Venice, Lake Garda, Castelfranco: Italy 2 - Sansepolcro, Tuscany: Umbria: Italy 3 - Urbina, Orvieto, a weekend in a villa near Rome : Italy 4: Praiano and the Amalafi Coast

I had my PSA test last week and it came back as 0.25 ng/ml - up a little from the low of 0.17 ng/ml. I would rather it had stayed down, but that was never going to happen. I don't know precisely how big the gland is right now, but last time it was measured it was about 100 gm - roughly four times the size of a normal gland - so that in itself would generate a good deal of PSA - about 5.00 ng/ml or 6.00 ng/ml on some calculations.

My GP was happy - but not really concentrating as he and his family are heading off for their first trip overseas and are all very worried about the state of the world and the possibility of being caught up in terrorist actions. We all have our different concerns.

Well meaning cyberfriends on Lists and Forums have urged me to take action, but, as I have done since the start of this journey, I'd rather collect a bit more evidence of necessity before doing anything more. Next PSA in February!

 

Terry 's email is: ghenesh_49@optusnet.com.au

 

RETURN TO INDEX : RETURN TO CHARTS : RETURN TO HOME PAGE LINKS