Posted 1/10/2015 12:58 AM (GMT 0)
I'm interested in researching testosterone saturation level. I understand that in order to avoid feeding PCa (at least the form of it that feeds on testosterone), the T level needs to be reduced to near 0. Somewhere between 0 and normal levels (say 500), there is an alleged "saturation level" of testosterone, above which there is no increased risk of further fueling the cancer, because once you reach the saturation level, the cancer has all it needs. I am curious whether there is any evidence as to what T level corresponds to saturation.
My uro surgeon claims that the saturation level exists, but it is indeterminate in the aggregate: it varies from man to man.
My "natural" T level, without supplementation, is between 100 and 200. If saturation is, say, 70, then a valid argument could be made that I should either be well below that level to combat it, or if it is not yet time to use HT, then I could "safely" supplement with T to a comfortable "normal" 500 (I really feel the difference between 150 and 400). At least, I would not be doing more damage in this case than I would without TRT.
My current uro oncologist is willing to respect my wishes and is providing me TRT (testopel), at least until my PSA velocity increases. This will be based on PSA testing prior to the next testopel dose, ongoing. My point of view is that I want to be at "normal" T levels (between 350 and 500) as long as I can, then I will go onto HT.
I am hoping that (1) my saturation level is not higher than my "natural" T level, so that it is indeed true that it won't matter whether I supplement or not, and (2) that I am not unduly accelerating my cancer.
Please share any studies you are aware of, or point me in the proper direction.
Thanks, Jeff