RE: Re: ROBOTIC PROSTECTOMY AND REATTACHED NERVE BUNDLES

[Guest guest]

> The 90% of prostatectomy patients having prostate cells in

> their bone marrow statement is interesting, but is it born

> out by science. Dr. Meyers seems to be quick on his

> pronouncements but is there any science behind them. Maybe,

> we just don't know. Or do we?

My impression was that Dr. Myers didn't make up or just estimate

those numbers but read them in a scientific study. He has been,

after all, a professor and leading research scientist in the area

of prostate cancer. I'd be shocked if he was just making some

personal estimate, not based on an empirical study.

> And if the statement is true, isn't it also very likely

> that our immune system will destroy those cells in short

> order. And since there is no longer a gland pumping new out

> ones, then most of us will be free of prostate cancer

> cells.

He says:

" ... While the number of cancer cells in the marrow decline

in the year after surgery and become undetectable in many,

there is no assurance that small nests of cancer cells do not

remain in a dormant state waiting to be activated at some

future date. "

So, yes, one way or another (whether from attacks by the immnune

system or by some other mechanism) tumor cells in the marrow are

" no longer detectable " in " many " men. Notice his careful

language here. He doesn't say there are no cells in these men,

only that they are not detectable.

> I just have a hard time believing that 90% of prostatectomy

> patients survive for decades with cancer cells hanging out

> in their body, waiting for the right conditions to go

> viral.

I hope you're right, but we do know that many men get recurrences

of prostate cancer (and other cancers too), many years after what

appears to have been 100% successful treatment. If I remember

correctly, the number of men who eventually have recurrences is

about 30%. I can well imagine that if men lived longer, that

number would go up.

I think Dr. Myers' point was not to discourage patients from

getting treatment (he got ADT and radiation treatment himself),

or to scare them about their futures. What he wanted people to

do was to adopt a lifestyle that promotes good health and

discourages cancer even if they appear to be cured. He doesn't

want us to let our guard down just because we got successful

treatment.

It sounds like good advice to me.

Alan

[Guest guest]

If we only knew ??

Many years ago on a documentary on breast cancer: the question was, If a doctor removed the breast and the cancer returned in about 10 years was it because he missed some of it. In a study it was determined that the cells away from the main tumor were held in check by an Anti-Angiogenesis chemical put out by the primary tumor, and when the primary tumor was removed they were no longer held in check(multiple metastasis) It has been my understanding that the same holds true for prostate cancer. But the mind set on tumors is complete removal.

Halfway through my radiation treatment I wanted to stop with the idea that I didn't want to kill the tumor just kick it's ass enough to slow down it's growth while holding all the other cells in check. Of course the Radiation Doctor became unglued which upset my wife and me being in a castrate mode from Lupron just said Moooo an they did what they wanted. So I'll never know.

Henry

There is some work done on this approach :

About tumor-starving therapy

a tumor-starving (anti-angiogenic) therapy. It is not chemotherapy and works differently.

The purpose is to block a protein called vascular endothelial growth factor, or VEGF. Normal cells produce VEGF, but cancer cells overproduce VEGF. Blocking VEGF may prevent the growth of new blood vessels that feed tumors.

To: ProstateCancerSupport From: djmarchand@...Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 17:41:28 +0000Subject: Re: ROBOTIC PROSTECTOMY AND REATTACHED NERVE BUNDLES

Well, I see it a little differently but maybe it is the same thing.The 90% of prostatectomy patients having prostate cells in their bone marrow statement is interesting, but is it born out by science. Dr. Meyers seems to be quick on his pronouncements but is there any science behind them. Maybe, we just don't know. Or do we?And if the statement is true, isn't it also very likely that our immune system will destroy those cells in short order. And since there is no longer a gland pumping new out ones, then most of us will be free of prostate cancer cells.I just have a hard time believing that 90% of prostatectomy patients survive for decades with cancer cells hanging out in their body, waiting for the right conditions to go viral.

[Guest guest]

> Halfway through my radiation treatment I wanted to stop with

> the idea that I didn't want to kill the tumor just kick it's

> ass enough to slow down it's growth while holding all the other

> cells in check. Of course the Radiation Doctor became unglued

> which upset my wife and me being in a castrate mode from Lupron

> just said Moooo an they did what they wanted. So I'll never

> know.

Henry,

There have been numerous studies that show that the effectiveness

of radiation is dose dependent. Modern radiation is

significantly more effective than the radiation delivered 15 or

more years ago primarily because the dose has increased.

64 grays used to be a common dose. Now 74-80 is common. " Cure "

rates have gone up significantly as a result. The main effect of

better targeting using the modern techniques has been that they

can avoid healthy tissue more easily and hence give a higher dose

without harming the patient.

I think your radiation onocologist was certainly right in

advising you to finish the full course of radiation. I think the

statistics show that men who get the larger doses are less likely

to die of PCa than those with smaller doses.

Alan