Hormone deprivation.

[Brycenosak (imported)]

I was talking to my Dad about his prostate treatment. He is getting radiation therapy. he reminded what happenend with his brother. Peter suffered metastatic bone cancer from his prostate. To reduce its spread the doctors wanted to eliminate testosterone. They were to perform a scrotal castration. Pete told me when he came out of surgery, to his surprise, he still had his testicles. Then they explained it was a sub capsular orchidectomy. Dad and I googled the procedure. The testicle is exposed ex scrotum, split open to reveal the hormone producing part in the center, which is then excised. The testicles are then stitched up and replaced in the scrotum. This produces a normal looking scrotum and contents. I guess it saves the cost of prosthetics, that he didnt want anyway. I know that Peter suffered high levels of testicular and inguinal pain until he died, years later of the cancer. They refused to surgically correct this and prescribed him pain killers. All my family are very intelligent, teachers etc. For him not to be fully informed, clearly shows the vanity and arrogance of doctors, (urologists) At least he looked normal!? I am on TRT. With my intramusculer injection I have blood tests. My PSA levels are monitored carefully. As I'm already castrated, I guess I can just stop the TRT, if the need arises

[cutnbulls2ox (imported)]

One of the tragedies of prostate cancer treatment is how reactive the trestments and castrations are. Most men are castrated too late to save their lives. It might buy them more time being alive than not being castrated. But too often its too late to prevent a painful death from the prostate cancer.

Men like you with a family history of close relatives with such severe prostate cancers might be extending your lives by getting castrated long before any prostate cancer is detected. An early neutering that few men will agree to and that is not covered by insurance as a preventive treatment.

I said severe prostate cancer as in that cancer solely killing a man earlier than any other health problems would cause his death. Since at very old ages prostate cancer is sometimes not treated at all, if other significant medical problems are likely to cause a man s death long before a diagnosed prostate cancer is likely to kill him by cancer alone.

Doing mass preventative castrations of men with many close family members who died of prostate cancer is not done now. But that might be far more effective than castrating men after they have active prostate cancer. The ideal ages to do these preventive castrations before any cancer is detected isn t something there is much discussion or research available online to research for yourself. But it is an idea that men with close relatives who died of prostate cancer should think about doing to extend their own lives.

Maybe mass prostate removals before any prostate cancer is detected would be an even better prevention that would allow men to keep their testicles, testosterone, and sexual abilities. The prostate is necessary in creating semen. But once a man no longer needs semen to impregnate with, the prostate could be removed with far less damage to him than removing his testicles and testosterone production and his sexual enjoyment. Ejaculating and orgasm without a prostate seems far better than ejaculating and orgasm with no testicles, especially since the prostate usually shrinks and malfunctions without testicles and testosterone to nourish the prostate gland.

I ve never heard of or read about any large scale medical studies to castrate healthy men or remove their prostates long before any prostate cancer is detected as a preventive treatment. But I think enough men with close relatives who died painful deaths from prostate cancer only would line up to try it and willingly give up either their prostate glands or their testicles to see if it might prevent that cancer and extend their life spans.

Us men with lots of prostate cancer deaths in our close male family members, in the generations immediately before our own, can pretty much expect to be chemically or surgically castrated some day for prostate cancer. But only after it is detected in our bodies. Maybe getting that same castration a year or a few years earlier or removing our prostates earlier would extend our lives far better than removing those a few years later when cancer is already growing in our bodies? Maybe premptive castrations and prostate removals would save a lot more lives and spare us painful illnesses and deaths from prostate cancer ?

Personally, I d choose numb fake balls in my sack or no balls over painful years of life caused by painful sub capsular castrated balls that provide no functioning sperm or testosterone production anyway. I can t imagine why any dr would refuse to castrate painful and non functioning sub capsular hollowed out ball shells for a man in pain. His hollow testicle shells are only cosmetic and provide no other function. No wonder those balls hurt so bad ! Getting split open, scraped out to nothing left inside them to become hollow shells, and then sewn back into hollow balls sounds like guaranteed pain forever from any nerves still connected to any testicle that was ever that destroyed and totally traumatized.

I can t be the only man wondering if early castration might be a good way to handle having dads and uncles and grandads dying from prostate cancer only. Other men are thinking the same things. A large scale medical study to do early castrations and prostate removals to prevent prostate cancer is long overdue. I d volunteer for it at the right ages if it would save my life to do it.

[experiment (imported)]

Would that it was as easy to eliminate cancer by prostate removal. Just remember that prostate removal has creates its own set of problems including incontinence, impotence, and still developing prostate cancer. Many males find they have prostate cancer 10-14 years after prostate surgery. ( it is difficult to understand how cancer can occur after removal, but it does occur fairly frequently)

Prostate removal is a far more involved surgery that castration.

I wonder if any studies have been done on the frequency of prostate cancer on castrated males who are on testosterone replacement? It seems that replacement might just cancel out the advantages of castration. I do know that doctors will not prescribe testosterone replacement for five years after prostrate radiation surgery with hormone treatment therapy. The PSA must remain at or near zero for five years even when the shots were only given for two years, according to many doctors.

I agree that early castration might be beneficial to males with a family history of prostate cancer. I wish there was a simple solution and alternative for the rest of us. My own experience has been dealing with an elevated PSA score since 1999, and having to go through blood teats, MRI and biopsies over the years. The anticipation and waiting can get very frustrating!

[Brycenosak (imported)]

A friend of mine had his prostate removed electively because his father had been castrated due to prostate cancer. He didnt want to lose his nuts for the same reason. His wife worked in the hospital system and he is very persuasive, otherwise I dont know any way a urologist would do that here. It did backfire on him though. He was incontinent and impotent. Within 2 years he complained to me that he had to sit down to piss because his penis had shrunk into his big healthy ballsack. I didnt believe him,until he showed me, honestly he didnt look he had a penis at all. Said no matter how horny he was, he never got a sign of a stiffy. My urologist said I may not need TRT, but within 2 weeks of my castration I manopausal as a bitch. And so the Trt saga began. I guess, if my prostate does 'play up' I have the advantage of just going off the TRT. Oh, yeah, the reason the doctors wouldnt revise uncle Pete's sub orhc was that years after it he was 'too frail'. I know how debiliting that type of pain is and cant help feeling that it broke him. B