It sounds like you’re confirming what I just said. Again, at risk of being pedantic, it’s useful for prognosis once the diagnosis has been confirmed. E.g. my PSA was 4.97 at diagnosis so fairly low and low risk, others have PSA in 4 figures which means that they almost certainly* have widespread metastatic prostate cancer.
However, it does correlate reasonably well with a specific cancer but, as I keep saying, it’s an indicator of prostate problems not a diagnosis of cancer and one anecdote doesn’t change that.
*You could say definitely but I’m always cautious that way.
Yes I probably am confirming what you said in my own little way but you sounded quite downbeat so just trying as Robert did to explain its not the end, you dont get out that easy your diagnosis must have been confirmed? They would commence microwaving you without confirmation?
Thanks but I’m mostly fine. I’m not saying that there aren’t moments but I tend to be matter of fact rather than fretful.
I know the posts in this thread are well-intentioned but a lot of the assertions are, at best, only half correct and are focussed on pre-diagnosis.
I’m a year into it now, and know more about prostate cancer than I ever wanted to, but the one key fact is that, post-treatment, one’s life revolves around regular PSA tests to measure the effectiveness of that treatment and to work out when the next phase might begin.
I can sound downbeat because I do look forward and consider the various routes things might take so that I understand what decisions I might need to make and what I need to know to make them. In work I’ve always been the moaning Minnie saying “have you thought about this?”
Totally understandable John, post my own treatment the dreams of it returning haunted me for quite a while and taking steps to put things in order just in case came to the fore. Just as I was getting the 5 year all clear my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer so opening up that box again. 9 years later she has had another lump removed and as previously said commences radiotherapy next week to mop up any remaining cells. Wishing you all the best for a good outcome and wont labour the point any longer
Yes Gleesen 6. I can only imagine stress. Yes on fb so will look.
A couple i know through FB seeing Dr Bernardeau as well. Similar he had prostate removed and now two years later psa shot up .
In what way? A prostatectomy might be curative but often isn’t either because some cancer cells remain due to positive surgical margins or it’s already metastasised into the lymph nodes or further afield.
The 5-year recurrence rate is something like 30% following radical prostatectomy.
I wish him well. Mine is doubling roughly every 5 months so it’s salvage RT for me and possibly hormone therapy. The latter causes me most concern as I’m already fat and grumpy and they’re both things that hormone therapy makes worse.
Interesting because as you said some cells may remain. This is different obviously but similar in my wifes case, the surgeon carried out a shaving of the back of her nipple to save the nipple yet the re occurance of her cancer is the same tumor DNA so almost certainly came from the nipple tissue.
There in may lay part of the issue, tumours like glucose, weight gain is insulin resistance related. Low carb diets can help as can intermittent fasting in producing ketones for fuel that cancers cannot use. Sugar is pretty much poison and messes up our systems. The hormones can regulate themselves given half a chance. They effect mood as well.
high sugar intake can indirectly contribute to cancer development by influencing testosterone levels and potentially increasing the risk of obesity, which is linked to prostate cancer.
I really do sympathise John, especially seeing how rough it was for friend (same one who is now clear) going through op and several rounds of RT. But really! Men have not so much as murmured about women being stuffed full of hormones that make them fat and grumpy over last 60 years! Look up Komorebi (Japanese) and go for a walk.
Some inherited genes but not poisioned albeit slowly the body for the most part regulates hormones very well. Putting in too much sugar and carbs will, as can be observed in the US make an entire nation of all sexes very fat and ill.
I’m not sure that you’re using the word prognosis correctly but it’s well established science that reducing testosterone levels causes prostate cancers to shrink at best or grow more slowly* at worst hence why it’s a clinical standard for treatment.
*Until it becomes castration résistent then it’s a new ballgame
“while low levels of testosterone were associated with decreased risk of developing prostate cancer, high testosterone levels were not associated with increased risk.”
Its uncomfortable in medical science that arguments fall away when the opposite does not agree. Same with cholesterol, and T2 diabetes, the arguments fall away, thats not real science it belief, often sadly fueled by outside interests and profit. Back to the drawing board.
Whereas there is no case where cutting sugars and losing weight doesnt improve outcomes.
I don’t think that saying prostate cancer feeds on testosterone is the same as saying high levels of testosterone leads to a higher risk of cancer.
There’s a reasonably logical construct that can be taken from your linked paper that, while higher levels don’t necessarily lead to higher cancer rates, it’s more difficult for prostate cancer to thrive at lower testosterone levels but those that can thrive will tend to be of the more aggressive type.
Thats what they said but I feel they are missing the real key which given the number of males suffering hopefully they will get closer to coming up with a better test and treatment.
your diagnosis must have been confirmed? They would commence microwaving you without confirmation?
