EnglishBob, you may find this thread interesting. We had a similar discussion a while ago:
www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3394220Within that thread are links to a couple things I had posted even before that. Here's a clip from my post on that thread for your convenience:
=========================================================
Thread from last October: www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3213559
This paragraph is in an article I linked in that thread:
medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-shorter-adt-high-risk-prostate-cancer.html
With a median follow-up time of 84 months, 55.7 percent (161) patients in the 18-month ADT group recovered normal testosterone levels. In comparison, 44.9 percent (122) patients of the 36-month ADT group recovered normal testosterone levels. Additionally, median time to testosterone recovery was shorter (47.2 months; range 40.1 – 54.3 months), in the 18-month ADT group, compared to the 36-month ADT group (73.2 months, range 58.3 – 88.2 months.
It bummed JNF out (sorry!!), and me too. The recovery periods are sobering. The MEDIAN for the 36 month group to recover "normal" T levels is just over 6 YEARS. Holy crap. This is a cruel disease, with frankly inhuman treatments!
Jerry===============================================================
My oncologist isn't completely on board with Dr. Nabid's results, and I can't find details about
the cohort that his study was based on. It's possible that very high risk people may benefit from longer time on ADT even if it takes longer to recover testosterone (if at all). There's no stratification of his results by risk group in what's publicly available. So, even with this study, my MO says she thinks I personally should stick it out as long as possible, 3 years still being the target. That's really based on the 2009 Bolla study, and they used far older radiation methods than we have today. I'm doubting that the 3 years is still worth the SE load with the precise delivery and levels of radiation now possible.