Excerpt: BERKELEY, CA (UroToday.com) - As part of their treatment for prostate cancer, approximately a half million men at any time in North America are on LHRH agonist drugs to lower their testosterone to castrate levels. These men suffer various side effects from this medical “emasculation” that reduce not only their quality of life, but also that of their partners (reviewed in Elliott et al., 2010). Our investigation focused on the language related to androgen deprivation. Language, used both literally and metaphorically, structures our understanding of reality (Wardhaugh, 2006). The way language is understood by physicians and their patients thus influences patient-doctor communication and may affect health care outcomes.

see the complete article at: http://www.urotoday.com/45/browse_categ ... sculation_ implications_for_cancer_patients_by_richard_wasser sug_phd_et_al11012010.html

A half million men!

i have known 5 men with prostate cancer

2 opted for orchiectomy

10 years later they are still doing quite well

the other 3 opted for chemical...they didnt want to be mutilated ...their words

1 died in 3 years

1 died in 4

and the last died 5 years later

i think something else besides hormones happens with surgical castration

Physical/surgical removal of the testicles prevents metastatis via the lymph nodes. If I had either testicular or prostate cancer, I'd certainly opt to have them cut out, as fast as possible.

Generic...I would assume that there has been studies on the outcomes of orchiectomy VS hormone therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer...

If those studies revealed anything like your observations, I would have to guess orchiectomy would be strongly recommended.

I've asked this before, but will anti-androgens plus female hormones reduce the size of my prostrate...without the use of these expensive drugs I am taking?

I've had one person say yes to this question..Any others? dragonfly

Androgen deprivation therapy has been shown to have only a minor role in extending the life of prostate cancer patients. Given quality of life issues, most patients will achieve the best possible result with watchful waiting.

If one has access to a doctor who has done hundreds of robotic radical prostatectomies and has a stage one or two cancer, then that is the way to go.

The current trend back to surgical castration is simply cost. Most insurance companies want to avoid paying out thousands of dollars for drugs that will do little to help the patient. They can pay a small sum for a relatively simple procedure instead.

Most men who are faced with the prospect of losing their masculinity will opt for a different approach to treatment.

I for one, have faced this prospect and fortunately found that I did not have prostate cancer. If androgen deprivation therapy had been offered me, I would have rejected it out of hand. I've experienced very low testosterone levels account my diabetes. The results are not good and not desirable.

Speed

Hi Speevogel...I too, recently underwent testing for prostate cancer and, luckily it turned out to be benign swollen prostate...Strangely, I was almost looking forward to getting castrated..I know...what a buffoon...But that's what I was thinking...Just another warped bastard...dragonfly

I really get uptight when I read about "watchful waiting" Prostate cancer maybe slow acting in some men but it killed several of my relatives in just a few years. Watchful waiting is all fine if your an insurance company that doesn't want to pay out for treatment.

Grrr - MrT

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:20 pm Androgen deprivation therapy has been shown to have only a minor role in extending the life of prostate cancer patients. Given quality of life issues, most patients will achieve the best possible result with watchful waiting.

If one has access to a doctor who has done hundreds of robotic radical prostatectomies and has a stage one or two cancer, then that is the way to go.

The current trend back to surgical castration is simply cost. Most insurance companies want to avoid paying out thousands of dollars for drugs that will do little to help the patient. They can pay a small sum for a relatively simple procedure instead.

Most men who are faced with the prospect of losing their masculinity will opt for a different approach to treatment.

I for one, have faced this prospect and fortunately found that I did not have prostate cancer. If androgen deprivation therapy had been offered me, I would have rejected it out of hand. I've experienced very low testosterone levels account my diabetes. The results are not good and not desirable.

Speed

"

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:20 pm Most men who are faced with the prospect of losing their masculinity will opt for a different approach to treatment.

"

P.S. THIS also pisses me off. Testosterone is what gives a man masculine traits not having a "pair" So if he has Testosterone regardless of if it comes from a pair of testes or a gel, injection, patch he can still retain his masculinity.

Mr Anger....

butterflyjack (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:47 pm Generic...I would assume that there has been studies on the outcomes of orchiectomy VS hormone therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer...

If those studies revealed anything like your observations, I would have to guess orchiectomy would be strongly recommended.

I've asked this before, but will anti-androgens plus female hormones reduce the size of my prostrate...without the use of these expensive drugs I am taking?

I've had one person say yes to this question..Any others? dragonfly

Add me to the "yes" replies, as to the anti-androgen part of your question. As a prospective recipient in 2007 of radiation treatment for prostate cancer, I learned that androgen-suppressing drugs are often administered for several months pre-treatment to shrink the size of large prostates to make them a smaller target for externally beamed-in radiation and thus reduce collateral damage on the rest of the patient from less tightly focused radiation. (My own prostate was small and I did not have any anti-androgen drugs as part of my successful radiation treatments late in 2007.)

speedvogel (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 09, 2010 5:20 pm Androgen deprivation therapy has been shown to have only a minor role in extending the life of prostate cancer patients. Given quality of life issues, most patients will achieve the best possible result with watchful waiting.

ADT, namely prescribed reduction of testosterone's presence and/or effects to virtually nothing, is indeed understood to usually work only until the malignancy further mutates to the point it no longer is suppressed by lack of testosterone. But ADT is often not used until primary treatment (prostatectomy, radiation, cryogenic freezing, or heat by ultrasound) has failed and the tumors have returned and migrated, becoming less vulnerable to ADT in the process.

A plain-language article in the Aug 2010 issue of PCRI Insights, the magazine of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute, reveals innovative use of ADT as the first recourse following biopsy confirmed diagnosis and staging of prostate cancer. The patient goes on ADT for a year or so while the tumor is still young, without invasive, destructive treatment of the prostate itself. Often the cancer dies out without returning, or another round of ADT after perhaps five years obtains that result. The article explaining this is by Dr Mark Scholz, a leader of PCRI, and is online in pages 16 through 20 of that Insights issue, here: http://www.prostate-cancer.org/pcricms/ ... _p1-40.pdf

Note: Dr Scholz and PCRI use the term “Testosterone-Inactivating Pharmaceuticals” (TIP) for the temporary chemical castration version of ADT while dismissing the alternative of surgical castration (presumably followed later by testosterone replacement therapy as the way back to or above normal) as “repugnant.” Many of us would not concur with surgical castration being repugnant per se, but that’s beside the point.

The point here is that up-front acceptance of one or more year-long spells of ADT may be acceptable to avoid substantial risk of enduring collateral damage from the mainstream primary treatments now in use. There appears to be a good chance that treatment-caused long-term side effects of having developed prostate cancer can be avoided, if ADT is undertaken early, followed by watchful monitoring before and after discontinuation of ADT.

PCRI was the source of info on side effects of testosterone deprivation posted by Kristoff on 01-04-2008 in EA’s Cancer – Testicular, Prostate forum. It’s a very thorough discussion that pulls no punches, and I agree those effects are unpleasant and largely unwanted.

Dr Wassersug, co-author of the subject of this thread, was featured in a well-written media article posted by Jesus on 10-03-2007, concerning surgical and chemical castration for advanced prostate cancer. Advancement of temporary castration to early-stage cancer as its sole treatment is this new method.