Most of the regular readers of this column, and many members of our social network, will have become aware by now of high-intensity focal ultrasound (HIFU) as a first-line treatment for early stage, localized prostate cancer that is in clinical trials in the USA and is widely available outside the USA.
The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink’s “official take” on HIFU as a first-line treatment is available elsewhere on this web site, and so we wish to be extremely clear, up front, that:
- For appropriately selected patients, when used by physicians who have significant experience of this technique, we believe that HIFU will, in time, and with high quality, supportive data, come to be acknowledged as an important, effective, and safe form of first line treatment.
- HIFU also has potential as a form of “focal therapy” for early stage, low risk, localized prostate cancer (although available data on such use of HIFU is very limited)
However, we are also concerned by:
- The widespread promotion of this technique in the USA — where it is not an approved form of therapy
- The common failure in such promotion to clearly and visibly communicate the adverse effects of HIFU that are well documented in published clinical series to date
- Some apparent conflicts of interest of certain companies and individuals associated with the widespread promotion of HIFU
Such promotion places concerned patients at risk, and positions HIFU as having an unjustifiably good safety record by implying that side effects common to all first-line treatments of localized prostate cancer are negligible when a man is treated with HIFU.
We refer readers to information appearing on the web site of a company called International HIFU, which describes itself as, “a healthcare development company and medical device distributor committed to creating a new standard for prostate cancer treatment with high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) therapy.”
What is less apparent is that there is a very clear business relationship between International HIFU and just one of the two developers of the equipment used to carry out HIFU, Focus Surgery, the developer of the Sonoblate® 500 HIFU equipment:
- International HIFU has the same Chairman, the same CEO, and the same business address as USHIFU, which is the official distributor of Sonoblate 500 equipment throughout “the Americas and South Africa.”
- USHIFU and International HIFU appear to be limited liability companies in the USA, which leads one to ask who actually owns the equity in these companies.
- USHIFU is clearly described on one web site as “the exclusive distributor of the Sonablate® 500 in the Americas and South Africa and the funding source for Phase II-III U.S. clinical trials of the device,” but they do not state the latter fact on their own web site.
- The primary physicians recommended as HIFU specialists on the HIFU International web site all appear to use the Sonoblate 500 technology.
- The physician listed first on the HIFU International web site as a recommended HIFU specialist “has an ownership interest in International HIFU and a compensation arrangement whereby he serves as Medical Director”; he is also listed as the medical director of USHIFU.
- Recent publicity about HIFU issued by International HIFU fails to mention a single side effect associated with the use of this technology (although it does acknowledge that the technology is not approved for use outside a clinical trial in the USA).
- The risk for adverse events associated with the use of HIFU are clear, and are listed in published papers and publication abstracts on the web sites of HIFU International and Focus Surgery; whereas this list of publications is easy to find on the Focus Surgery web site, it is much harder to find on the International HIFU web site.
The other type of HIFU equipment currently in clinical trials in the USA is the Ablatherm® technology, developed and marketed by EDAP TMS, a company with headquarters in France.
Some 15 years ago, many of the patients who were early recipients of cryotherapy fervently believed that it was superior to other treatments as an option for first-line treatment for prostate cancer. And when it worked well, it could certainly seem to patients and their physicians that that might be the case. We have learned over time, however, even though the quality of outcomes to cryotherapy have certainly improved with the availablity of “third generation” technology based on argon gas to freeze the prostate, that cryotherapy still has a significant risk for adverse events.
We are seeing the same type of fervent behavior today among some of the early recipients of HIFU, whose outcomes certainly seem to be excellent (at least in the short term). However, a large data series, preferably with 10-year follow-up and outcomes data, will be needed to really demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of HIFU over time. International HIFU, in the meantime, is certainly taking advantage of the fervency of some of those patients to promote ex-US treatment with HIFU in the USA for those patients who can afford to travel and pay for it themselves. (HIFU is not covered by insurance providers in the USA; nor is it covered by, for example, the UK National Health Service.)
The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink actually encourages newly diagnosed patients to find out about HIFU, to read some of the available literature on this technique, and to come to their own decisions about whether to participate in the ongoing clinical trials in the USA or to travel abroad to receive this type of treatment. However, we also strongly recommend a high degree of skepticism in reading some of the promotional information that is provided by clinics offering this technique and by the distributors of the technology. They all have a financial interest in your decision to undergo treatment with HIFU.
If you are considering HIFU, we particularly suggest that you ask about the following:
- Does the physician offering to treat you with HIFU have a financial relationship with a distributor or the manufacturer of the equipment that will be used?
- Is there a clinical trial of HIFU ongoing in the country where you live that would allow you to undergo treatment at no cost or at limited cost?
- How long has the physician offering to treat you with HIFU carried out this technique, on how many patients, and what are his or her personal outcome data and his or her personal adverse event data?
At the end of the day, every newly diagnosed patient wishes to have his prostate cancer eliminated with (ideally) absolutely no adverse effects of treatment. This may prove to be the case for some patients treated with HIFU. For the majority, however, there will be at least some side effects of treatment. And for a few those side effects will be serious. There is no form of active therapy (whether described as “invasive” or not) available today that does not come with known and reasonably well-defined risks for adverse effects, most commonly associated with at least temporary incontinence and erectile dysfuction, but sometimes with more serious problems.
In conclusion, caveat emptor — which (for those less familiar with Latin as a language learned in school) means, “Let the buyer beware!”
Filed under: Management, Treatment | Tagged: HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound, promotion, conflicts of interest
Search for new and
ongoing trials on the
CTAG PCa web site
Mike, what a nice write-up.
I cannot speak for International HIFU, but I know that their doctor, Dr. S. Scionti, worked with the Ablatherm for years and decided he preferred the Sonablate. I always thought he had a financial interest in the American-made Sonablate. He certainly could have bought into the French Albatherm as well, if he chose.
Still, he teaches doctors on both machines, and is dedicated to HIFU over any machine. He has 5 years experience and 400 patients.
My HIFU treatment was picture perfect , I was urinating normally at 4 days and had sex within 3 weeks. I had no side effects whatsoever and I would recommend internationalHIFU every time.
I’d say to be careful reading old data, as things improve. And, be skeptical reading what a web site from someone selling HIFU says, and follow the rules the doc tells you.
If you qualify for HIFU I certainly cannot imagine why you wouldn’t take this route.
Ooops, Dr. Scionti does not have a financial interest in Sonablate at all, but he is the most experienced HIFU doctor in America.
Everyone with a good outcome thinks their doctor is the best, I’m no exception!!
Mike, I welcome your comments about HIFU but wish to clarify the issue about side effects. I have looked at the references and none were using validated questionnaires to assess impotence and incontinence. So the results that are quoted lack the validity of other modes of treatment that have undergone more critical assessment and this absence of documentation most likely means that the complication rates are being underquoted.
Again … I would agree. In the absence of any good trial data, we have the same problem as we have with PBRT! If you look at the discussion of HIFU on the main site (as opposed to the blog) I was VERY careful to refer people to the article published by the French Urology Association from early 2008, which was carefully neutral about HIFU. The material on the web sites of Focal Surgery and International HIFU is obviously the “best” data they could find, and even those data come with noticeable problems (if read with a discerning eye).
Wouldn’t you think that because we live in a litigious world one would have to post a worst case scenerio on a web site? Even if a certain doctor’s data is flawless, could he actually post that data without also citing that complications are a possibility?
I certainly read with interest in your article that Albatherm has a 52% redo rate:
Quote: “For the 117 patients there were 179 sessions of HIFU. In fact, 61/117 patients (52 percent) required two sessions of HIFU.
http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/treatment/first-line-localized/other/hifu-localized-prostate-cancer/
November 2007 by the Association Francaise d’Urologie, published in 2008, updated 2009.”
Ron: The litigious nature of our society means that lawyers will always advise their clients on the side of caution… and so yes, the lawyer will tell the doctor to include the statement that “complications are always a possibility.” And that is true.
However, that should never stop the doctor from saying, “I have conducted 2,347 cases of treatment A in patients with conditions X, Y, and Z. To date there have been 2,347 out of 2,347 outcomes in which the patients clinical condition has been completely resolved, with no known adverse reactions and no known complications” (always assuming that such a statement is demonstrably true!). However, if the doctor doesn’t have the data to back up the statement, then (s)he is treading on extremely thin ice! In this situation, the “worst case scenario” is still a perfect outcome.
On the other hand, if 2,346 out of 2,347 patients had had perfect outcomes, and one patient died of unknown causes, one would be wise to mention the death as opposed to glossing over this minor fact (even if you were able to say that the patient died of unknown causes that appeared to have no correlation to the procedure, which had not even started at the time).
I kept a nice log on my adventure with HIFU and sent it in to Yananow. It’s never been posted. I am thinking they don’t like uncomplicated stories with great doctors and with happy endings, they like the stories with complications … or maybe they are part of the click that promotes the French made Albatherm.
I sent it on their form over a month ago.
Ron: I recommend you e-mail Terry Herbert aand ask him if there has been a problem. Yananow doesn’t “edit” patient stories like that. Of course it is also possible that you may have made an error of some type in trying to submit your material.
Mike and Ron: As someone scheduled for robotic prostate cancer in 3 weeks, but who is seriously looking into HIFU, I read your discussion on HIFU from 2/23 to 2/26 with great interest. I have read all the Internet promotional data by both HIFU companies and both have some merit. I have relatives in England and have spoken to a noted urologist there who does the robotic surgery and has access to both Sonoblate and Ablatherm HIFU machines. He prefers the Sonoblate for primary treatment and the Ablatherm for salvage treatments. Ron, I would like to discuss the details of your treatment with the Sonoblate with Dr. S. Scionti as soon as possible, either through the blog or directly if that’s possible.
Dear Mr. G: Unfortunately we are not in a position to give you contact information for Ron. He was a member of The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink Social Network for a while but withdrew his membership. I can only tell you that he was very passionately in favor of the Sonoblate procedure as carried out by Dr. Scionti.
Hi,
I am open to any questions, as Mike Scott said I am a huge proponent of Dr. Scionti and definitely the Sonablate. Dr. Scionti is the doc who teaches HIFU outside Europe, he was a great fellow, made me totally at ease, and I am betting when he can publish long-term data it’ll be spotless. It must be frustrating to withhold what data he has now. Dr. Lazar, a urologist in Californai told me Dr. Scionti “is the king of HIFU.” I say … why pay the same for someone less experienced?? It’s maddening to me that cryosurgery is available in the US but the exact same technique — that is — total ablation of the prostate — (HIFU) isn’t. But the Board of Directors of the FDA is composed of surgeons and radiologists.
Fire away!
Ron: Thanks so much for the quick response. I have a lot of questions so please bear with me.
1. How extensively did you research HIFU, and more specifically, Sonoblate 500 vs. Ablatherm, before making your decision? What were the factors that lead you to choose Sonoblate?
2. The whole process of going offshore to an “American” hospital seems a little bit scary. People I have talked to locally (both doctors and friends) have said “What are you crazy, what about all the people who have had disastrous operation results going out of the country”.
3. As I have talked to a doctor in London who uses the Sonoblate for primary treatment because he feel he can custom tailor the treatment to each patient much better than he can with the Alblatherm. He has done about 200 treatments and he said the cost is about $15,000. He feels that robotic surgery should be my first choice of treatment (he has done 700 of those) because the chance of the cancer returning is about 5% to 10%, but the chance of erectile recovery is about 50% With Sonoblate HIFU he feels the chance of cancer coming back is 20-25% but that the chance of erectile recovery is 80%. I also had a research oncologist at Duke tell me that my chances of cancer coming back were 30-35%. I guess it comes down to what my priorities are and how much of a gambler I want to be. I know you had a great experience with HIFU, but are you more the exception than the rule? Did you talk to a lot of patients of Dr. Scionti prior to and after your procedure? What percentages soes Dr. Scionti report? Also, you mention that “it must be frustrating to withhold data he (Dr. Scionti) has now”. Why is it he can’t publish the data he has to date?
4. Mike Scott responded with the recent English three-year study, which is not that positive, although I did note that it was based on results from a second generation Ablatherm machine. I have spoken with Dr. Orovan at Maple Leaf HIFU in Toronto and he says they use a third generation Alblatherm which is far superior to the earlier models. Did you consider Maple Leaf when you were doing your research?
5. When did you have your treatment done and what was the facility where it was performed? What were your Gleason Scores, PSA, and T scores? I have had a couple doctors say that because I have one 4+3=7 Gleason score that my cancer is too aggressive and I would be better off going with surgery. My T rating is T1C and my PSA over the last six months has been 5.6, 7.6, 6.8. Just wondered how my statistics compared with yours.
Again, I really appreciate your quick response and anything you can think of that I have not covered; please feel free to pass along.
Frank, Ron: It would be better if you took this discussion to direct e-mail or into the social network if you would be so kind. This site is not intended as a “chat room”
Long article of data from a 10-year study … here’s a bit of it …
“Dr. Stefan Thuroff presented a discussion on efficacy, results and safety covering 10 years of experience based on treatments at University Hospital of Munich, Harlaching, Germany. The 10-year experience with Ablatherm-HIFU in Europe clearly demonstrates the clinical, technical and safety strength compared to other treatments. Dr. Thuroff’s presentation reiterated negative biopsy rates from 79.4 percent in locally advanced prostate cancer to 93.7 percent in localized low to medium risk prostate cancer cases. ”
Mike, you said in your first post above about how International HIFU “fails to mention a single side effect associated with the use of this technology.” This simply isn’t true. There’s a page listed as “potential side effects.” It lists every possible side effect. I remember that I had to google up the definitions before I went to Puerto Vallarta for treatment. I thought I’d feel the same as I did after a biopsy, pain when sitting down — but there was no feeling that anything had happened at all … ever.
Dear Ron:
(1) The “long article” you refer to is not an article at all. It is a press release from EDAP TMS. Please see the source referred to at the bottom of the article. Press releases from companies are not reliable sources of unbiased information. Furthermore, it deals exclusively with experience of using HIFU in second-line therapy of men who have a biochemical recurrence after radiation therapy.
(2) In the original article above, I did not say or imply that International HIFU had never provided any information on adverse events. I said that the specific article that I was referring to, which was generated and distributed by International HIFU, made no mention of side effects. I have stated this accurately three times now.
The paragraph I quoted above is not “second-line therapy”, however most of the article is.
Regarding the article you referred to … before you book with International HIFU they send you a book which lists all of the possible side effects. They are not trying to hide anything.
I forgot to state that I asked Dr. Scionti’s nurse AFTER I had my HIFU treatment what the odds were of ED after HIFU.
See the paper by Challacombe et al. reporting negative results of HIFU.
[Editorial note: We also commented on the Challacombe paper on March 31, 2009.]
Regarding your Challacombe report on the Albatherm: I have noted that Albatherm has a high redo rate. I’ve been told 40%. This is because of the pre-set limitation of the scope of the treatable area.
I have found many men who have been treated with the Sonablate and had results like mine: picture perfect. But most aren’t interested in joining a forum. I post because I want to “pay it forward” and help other men.
HIFU is safer and cheaper. And I can’t figure out why radiation wasn’t required to undergo clinical trials when it does the same thing as HIFU: ablate the gland, and radiation has some bad baggage, whereas HIFU can always be followed by surgery or anything else, even another HIFU.
I have found that in the UK they have had such great results with HIFU for prostate cancer they are now using HIFU in clinical trials for liver, kidney & pancreatic cancer at the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals &
Royal Marsden Hospital for the Institiute of Cancer Research.
Gerald Chodak says above that HIFU has no validated questionnaires to assess impotence and incontinence. So the results that are quoted lack the validity of other modes of treatment that have undergone more critical assessment.
Not true, as International HIFU has sent me two questionaires so far, one at 1month, and another at 3 months. They were long — 5 and 6 pages each.
Dear Ron: What Dr. Chodak actually said was that in the published data available to date there was no reference to validated questionnaires. If International HIFU is now sending out such questionnaires, I am sure we all look forward to publication of the data based on those questionnaires.
I had HIFU treatment by Dr. Scionti two years ago. At the time I was age 51, with a PSA of 6.0, Gleason 3 + 3 = 6, and stage T1c. A biopsy showed one core sample with 20% cancer.
Before choosing HIFU, I read articles from Japan, France, and Germany regarding HIFU and its results. I asked USHIFU for patient references and interviewed at least a dozen men and a couple of their wives over the phone, gathered before and after stats on their treatment, etc. Talking to people one on one is the only way to get the real facts as most people don’t want to publicize their ED or urinary problems to the world, much less to admit that their treatment isn’t working and the PSA is rising. The results are not “spotless” but all of the men recommended HIFU and would do it over again. I was concerned about and aware of the marketing program USHIFU puts out, but there is plenty of information available to those that choose to investigate.
The fact is that HIFU is fairly new and it is primarily intended for early stage cancer contained in the prostate. As for my current state, my PSA is at 0.9 (the nadir was 0.6) after two years and I have no noticeable side effects. I missed one day of work while flying back from Mexico on a Monday; however, I would recommend others to take the week off to rest. The subpubic catheter is very uncomfortable and I had it for 17 days. I was able to have intercourse the day it came out and was back to all my normal routines (swimming, etc.) within 30 days.
Being a realist and having talked to many men that have had HIFU, I accept there is a chance the cancer will return at some point in my life because there is still tissue left to protect the erectile nerves. Hopefully, medical options will continue to improve over time. I submitted my story to YANANOW and it was put on line.
Hi Chuck,
Just wanted to post that my PSA ~ 6 months out from HIFU is ~ 0.4 ng/ml.
I appreciate your post.
Being the gland still exists I believe that is why we still have some PSA. But no cancer, as all the tissue is gone.
There is still a chance the cancer will return with every guy who has done anything to treat prostate cancer, but with us, our quality of life hasn’t changed. (Mine improved as I don’t dribble anymore!)
I’ll take that!!!
Ron
Here is a link to the page that lists all the studies listed about HIFU and prostate cancer on PubMed. There are 151 studies and 40 reviews, one of the studies being the study you posted above which had negative effects (by Challacombe et al.).
I’ve been reading them and find the study you posted is the only negative one.
I read that the ED rate is 30%, and incontinence (wearing pads) is less than 1% (1 out of 172 patients).
Hou et al. from the University of Colorado published a review of their findings in April 2009. They report the potential for increased efficacy and decreasing complications of more invasive treatments such as surgery and radiation.
Just thought I’d drop by and inform all that my PSA has gone from 0.4 to 0.3. Yipppeee!
I’ve sent several men in for HIFU with Scionti and all of them report back that they are doing great, no side effects. A little ED which is easily treated with Cialis. But zero incontinence.
Biopsy came back Gleason 9; All on right side and confined in the prostrate. This is confirmed by 3 Telsa MRI-S, bone scan, and CT scan. I have chosen HIFU as first treatment. I’m thinking cancer can be left behind by surgery and I don’t want a grade 9 cancer left behind. Will always have more second options later if HIFU is not successful. My first priority is to get rid of the cancer, but with a Gleason 9 I must have a backup option just in case. One surgeon said to do surgery; another said radiation with seeds. Two HIFU doctors said do HIFU. Looking at side effects records I have seen, HIFU to me seems by far the best choice.
Everyone has to come to their own conclusions about treatment for early stage disease, but I have to say that (based on the available data) I would not personally consider HIFU to be a good option if I was diagnosed with Gleason 9 disease. What is more, regardless of the results of the spectroscopic MRI, the CT scan, and the bone scan, you cannot conclude from such tests that the cancer is confined to the prostate because none of these tests can image micrometastatic disease, which is the highest risk of a early stage Gleason 9 cancer.
I don’t “know” what I would do, personally, if I received such a diagnosis, but I do know that HIFU would be low on my list of options, and I would only consider doing it in conjunction with short-term, pre-treatment hormone therapy that reduced my PSA to < 0.1 ng/ml. There is, of course, no good evidence to support such a strategy. I am only expressing an entirely personal opinion.
The doctors in Japan have posted a 64% success rate for high risk cancer, and that was back in 2005.
I’d take the risk with HIFU as SteveE. As he said, there are considerable more risks with surgery and radiation. And, those options are always available later. My PSA is 0.3. I know several people who have had HIFU and are 3 to 7 years out with excellent, low, stable PSAs. HIFU is the future.
The only risk I wouldn’t take is with a HIFU doctor who hadn’t been treating men for years and who didn’t have hundreds of treatments under his belt. I recommend Dr. Scionti; he has 6 years experience; must be at 800 patients by now. He is the doctor who has trained all the doctors in the HIFU clinical trials.
Remember that with the Sonablate the doctor can zap cancer outside the gland, as he can see it real time through the computer.
SteveE, I sure hope you keep us posted. Most of the cancer forums erase a HIFU post that is good and ban you. They’ll let you ask a HIFU question but they’ll erase and ban any positive answers. This place is one of the few good forums, glad you found it.
Much good luck to you.
I’d like to add…
Dr. Scionti does not want anyone on the web saying that HIFU didn’t work after treatment with him. So, you will need to send in all of your data. If he feels HIFU will work for you, then he will treat you.
I have decided to do HIFU on October 16th. I pray that I have done right. I admit I’m a little nervous about it. Radiation — the big gun — was the other option. Dr. Scionti thinks I have a 75% chance to get it the first time. He said everything in the prostate will be destroyed.
I am with you in spirit … and happy for you … you are in the best hands … I’ve sent in several friends to date and all report no problems … Listen closely to the rules, and obey all of them, it’s important to drink all that water so you flush yourself out (no clogs!), and pee normally at 4 days post to keep the muscles alive, and keep that damn catheter in for 2 weeks for sure (once again to guard against clogs).
I feel so lucky to have found HIFU, I found it through a friend on the web. I am thrilled when I can help someone else. Someday we will all look back and know we were ahead of the times.
My best to you.
Ron et al.
I just came across this discussion board and find the information timely. I have been in discussion with Dr. Wheeler in Florida, who promotes HIFU; Dr. Lazar in California, as well as my surgeon/urologist and radiation oncologist. At this point I am pursuing treatment with Dr. Lazar as he is closest to my home, but I am still in the initial planning stages. So far as I have read on the issue, for my stage of PC, HIFU should be a preferred option.
SteveE,
Sure would like to hear back from you. The other guy on this thread, Frank, was treated by Dr. Scionti,and he wrote me privately to say thanks and that all went well. But, it’d be nice to read it here.
Hi Chris,
Dr. Lazar was treating other men while I was being treated in Puerto Vallarta, so I met him. A very likeable guy who is quite happy about being on the forefront of HIFU, being able to save the quality of men’s lives while beating the cancer. You are in great hands.
On another thread at this site there is a guy who told us about how he had a PSA of 19. and he was treated with HIFU, and 2 months post his PSA was 0.1. He then started hormone treatment as a precaution being he was considered “high risk.”
Keep in touch.
Steve: We would all like to hear from you. It’s now been 13 months plus since I had my HIFU procedure performed with the Sonablate 500 and my PSA remains at 0.1. My bladder training was a very smooth transition with the readily available staff at USHIFU staff in Charlotte. Let me know if you have I can answer any questions you may have. Wishing you a speedy recovery.
Chris: HIFU was definitely the preferred option for me. My doctor told me something similar to what Dr. Scionti told you, “Your prostate will be like an empty egg shell.” There is NO question in my mind that HIFU will soon become the preferred option for million’s of patient’s who otherwise would be stuck with the postoperative effects of radiation. Perhaps the radiologists who are on the Board of Director’s with the FDA are becoming concerned about the overall succes of HIFU.
In regards to the title of this original post in February, “Under appreciated or over-promoted: How can you over promote a procedure that is NON-invasive and has no side effects. I’m receiving info from other’s who used the Sonablate 500 and also report no side effects as have additional poster’s responding to this posting. I intend to post my story on every prostate cancer website I can find as I am EXTREMELY appreciative of the availability of HIFU. USHIFU representatives have informed me that they are performed hundreds of procedures per month now, mainly in Toronto, Cancun and the Bahamas. I’ve also been informed that they have passed all three phases of the mandatory clincial trials and awaiting approval from the FDA to perform the procedure in the U.S. within 12-18 months. Thank you and God bless everyone.
Dear Ed:
First, the FDA does not have a “Board of Directors,” nor are its decisions based on the opinions of any physicians who would be “concerned about the overall success of HIFU.” Indeed, the FDA is normally highly supportive of the approval of new forms of medical treatment that are shown to be as effective and safer than older forms of treatment. However, it does take time for them to evaluate data provided to them, and those data must conform to specific, pre-agreed criteria.
Second, it is not accurate to state that HIFU “has no side effects.” Side effects of this technique have been well documented in a significant number of patients. As just one example, please see the report on the research carried out in the UK by Emberton and his colleagues.
After considerable thought, The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink has decided not to post any further comments on this particular news item (which is, after all, nearly a year old).
All those interested in the application of HIFU are encouraged to please continue their conversations using the HIFU discussion group on the associated social network, which is, in any case a far more appropriate site for this type of discussion.
Thank you.
HIFU works and works well. Dr. Suarez did the procedure on me almost 4 years ago. My PSA is 0.5 and I have a great sex life. It helps to watch your diet and take some immune boosting supplements for life after any prostate procedure. Sadly I got this disease in my late 40s. Hopefully the FDA will do the right thing and approve HIFU in the US and give guys another choice in the battle vs. cancer..
Just to let every one know my 3 month PSA came in at less than 0.1. The only change I made was I went with Dr. Orovan in Toronto, Canada. Very kind doctor and high skill level with the Albatherm. Now I just need to keep the PSA at this level. Did HIFU on October 22, 2009. I’m very pleased with the results; no incontinence; however, the right nerve bundle was taken for better coverage to increase the chances of removing any cancer that might have been near the nerves. This was discussed before the procedure. I am having a problem with ED, but I feel it will get better as each month passes.
Great to hear your news, sounds like you are quite lucky to be okay. Are you taking Cialis? From what I understand it’s important to keep the blood flowing and the veins open, don’t let them stay collapsed.
Did you have a TURP? I understand it’s au-regular with the Ablatherm, did that give you any pain or trouble? It’s given at the same time as the HIFU, right?
He “took” the right nerve bundle? Was it treated with HIFU, or surgery? I didn’t know they could go outside the gland like that. Man, this HIFU can do anything.
Terrific PSA, I’ll bet you feel like Shaun White feels today!
Yes, just started last week on Cialis. Did not have a TURP; my prostate was small; HIFU only.
Good to know you’re doing well John. HIFU is excellent option.
Yes! John it is really great to hear from an old timer! Was your PSA 0.5 right afterwards, or did it wander around for a while?
Lucky guy Steve, that you didn’t need the TURP. Hope you didn’t wait too long to start on the Cialis, maybe increase your dosage if it isn’t responding, eh? Get the blood to flow.
The FDA has a “team of advisors,” not a “board of directors”, but they are doctors, and they make the decisions.