NE-skier said...
PS - I see you are on HT for 3 years. I have read several studies where they suggest HT for 18-24 months post IMRT. My MO wants me on Lupron for 18 months total which is 13 months post IMRT.
HT will keep your PSA low until the PC becomes resistant, if there is active PC. If you go off HT you will see what your PSA is doing. It may stay down for a longtime and HT can be restarted, probably with chemo, should the PSA start to rise.
I'm not a doctor, this is something to explore with your MO.
Thanks for the thought. I've seen the 18 month studies too, and rather passionately discussed it with my MO in March (I WAS interested in that!).
Her position is that I'm in primary treatment for quite a serious diagnosis, and the only real data applicable is still the 2009 Bolla study that clearly supported 3 years (but using much older radiation therapy methods and lower radiation doses). She says if I can "tolerate" it, it would be better to stay on it. The 2013 ASCO presentation by Dr. Navid was fairly persuasive, but the cohort was so broadly drawn that it's tough to say how it would really apply to any given individual. Hard to believe that a T3 G6 or G7 is really in the same risk category as a T3 G9 5+4 though that study would say they're the same. So, when you blur all that data together, the ones that fail earlier or later may be in critical subgroups that can't be easily identified.
Every time one of those shorter duration discussions comes up, it's really hard to find the actual cohort definition, and I've never seen a breakdown of subgroups. There are very few T3 G9 5+4 cases (fortunately), and usually the number they can recruit to a study is too small to have any statistical identity within the study cohort. So, they're lumped into the larger "high risk = T3/4, OR PSA>=20, OR G>7). It's the "or" in there that's the problem. There's always a range of results in any study. They don't, maybe can't, identify if the bad result people are in one subgroup, and good result people are in another. The statistics just aren't robust enough to reveal it.
Finally, my MO said, in kind of hard to refute logic, that she'd rather find out 10 years from now that 3 years was too much, than to find out that 2 years was not enough. We had a fairly spirited discussion, but I ended up getting another Lupron shot.... sigh...
She did say that if I really pitched a fit about
it sometime during the coming year that she'd understand, and would support me discontinuing it some time in the next few months. I'm thinking maybe get my last 4 month one in July, thus terminating the dose coverage at 32 months. Especially since it may take a long time for T to recover anyway (though even that too may have been a factor in the earlier 3 years vs 6 months Bolla study).