National Conference on Prostate Cancer-2009

First time poster...

Can anyone here give us a report on learnings from the National Conference this past weekend in LA?

Thanks, Steve, for the link.  I've had that link for a while and had tenative plans to attend, but those plans did not work out.

Was wondering if there were other inquiring minds from this site who had attended the conference procedings themselves and could share their first-hand account of learnings. 

The conference looks like an excellent opportunity for both medical professionals AND patients to learn the latest info from many of the leading PCa medical experts...thought some on this site might be tuned-in.

Anyone?

I went on Sunday and watched Dr. Scholz give the review of the highlights from Saturday.

I went to the Exhibition Hall and while there were some earnest vendors there, there were also the "snake oil" merchants hoping to cash in by offering vitamins and such which have not been proven to be effective in treating prostate cancer.

I checked out a few of the conference rooms where the doctors were giving their expert opinions on the particular brand of prostate treatments that they specialize in. You were free to ask questions and they readily answered them.

Let me say up front that Dr. Scholz and Dr. Bahn are my prostate doctors and I went with them after interviewing several doctors because Scholz and Bahn are of the same mindset as I. They are of the thinking that ten years from now all these surgeries and drastic radiation treatments will be passe because newer and more precise ways of treating prostate cancer will have arrived. Vaccines are on the horizon. Removing the entire prostate will not be needed except in extreme cases. They are also of the thinking that Active Surveillance is currently a good treatment option for all ages of people who have prostate cancer IF the patient falls within the guidelines for Active Surveillance. They provided studies that showed that people who had surgery for early stages of prostate cancer as opposed to doing Active Surveillance (which includes adopting a healthy diet and increasing exercise) had close to the same survival rates. Sholz is big on promoting keeping your heart healthy because heart disease kills a tremendous amount of people versus prostate cancer.

Scholz went on to promote three things for a healthy lifestyle (which he said could also help in combating prostate cancer):
1. Diet
2. Exercise
3. A Positive Attitude

(One study that they produced showed that people who smoke and exercised were significantly more healthy than non-smokers who didn't exercise.

One study showed that men in a town in China suffered almost no instances of prostate cancer which they attributed to diet. When men from this town moved to the United States the instances of prostate cancer dramatically increased. They attributed this to changing from a more vegetable-based diet to a diet which was heavy with animal proteins and animal products.

They had a lot of studies...)

The most interesting event that I attended was the "Ask The Experts" where all the doctors shared the stage and looked at patient case studies and answered questions from the audience. Surprisingly, the doctors who favor Active Surveillance were quick to prescribe some sort of treatment (radiation, hormone therapy, even chemo) if the patient looked as if he was in serious trouble. I don't recall anyone on the panel recommending prostatectomies. Maybe because there was no doctor who specialized in prostatectomies on the panel. Maybe because they have seen too many bad side effects from the surgeries.

There was one "dust up" between Dr. Meyers and Dr. Rossi and the radiation doctors. For the early stages of prostate cancer, the radiation docs recommended radiation treatments (of course.) Dr. Meyers in essence said, 'I know on these panels that we all try to be collegiate and support each other, but I need to break away and state that I disagree with some of the other doctors. I didn't always used to think this way, but I now believe that Active Surveillance is a very good option for many patients who have prostate cancer. We have to take into account the serious side effects and how the quality of life changes for patients who we advise into taking these treatments. Sometimes the treatments are worse than living with the prostate cancer which may well not kill a patient. And we should be accountable for giving that advice.'

In fairness a case study which had a patient with an early stage of prostate cancer was discussed. The radiation guys wanted to give the guy radiation treatments immediately while the other doctors sought much more conservative methods of treating the disease. After several years, the patient's disease grew worse and the Active Surveillance guys were quick to recommend radiation treatments as soon as possible.

Scholz also talked about how people living longer lives is forcing the medical community to come up with better cures for prostate cancer as well as Alzheimer's Disease.

And so it goes. I could write a lot more of my observations, but this post is too long as it is. Dr. Scholz put together the conference so you could argue that it was slanted a certain way. Then again, if the other doctors had proof that their treatments were better they were certainly welcome to present them. Me, I read and question everything. And I second guess doctors a lot.

As I left through the parking lot looking for my car, one of the doctors on the panel was cursing madly as he walked far ahead of me looking for his car. I realized long ago that doctors are just as human as you and I and make as many mistakes as you and I. It's always best to get as many opinions as possible and not believe that the first doctor you speak with has the only correct answer.

Franchot,
Thanks for the summary. Scholtz and Bahn have seen tens of thousands cases of prostate cancer and are certainly biased in their thoughts. I once told Scholz that he was biased against surgery and he got angry and started giving stats on surgery and all of the side affects caused by botched treatments. That was the only time I have seen him upset.
JohnT

Thanks, Franchot.

I was hoping someone from this esteemed group would have actually attended the technical procedings in order to continue to stay on top of things. 

There is almost always a "big picture" or "emerging trend" that one can pick up from national conferences like this one...would you say that from this conference an emerging trend seems to be that the pendulum is heading toward broader support for AS? 

Thanks again for summarizing the technical sessions you attended.

Franchot,

 

Hmmm…

 

I’ve also come to conclude that low risk cases do make “good candidates” for a wide variety treatments...probably both a blessing and a curse.  Very interesting comment, however, about the Loma Linda flip-flop.  There certainly is a lot of money to be made in PC treatments, but few have hired marketing firms like the proton beam trade association which has fairly recently formed.  That bothers me.

 

Good luck with your AS.  I think you nailed the big picture with this summary comment:

 

“…but all mentioned that a big hurdle in whether to treat or wait to treat the disease would be to develop more accurate tests which could determine just how quickly the disease is developing in a person.”

 

I hope that this becomes an area of research “break-through” in the near future.