<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for THE "NEW"  PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK</title>
	<atom:link href="http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 22:04:02 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Prostasol: a risk for blood clots? by Charles (Chuck) Maack</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/15/prostasol-a-risk-for-blood-clots/#comment-697</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles (Chuck) Maack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:52:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=617#comment-697</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href="http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=10577" rel="nofollow"&gt;A prior Danish report&lt;/a&gt; advises that analysis of Prostasol determined the presence of diethystilbestrol (DES) and prohibits its distribution.

Proponents of Prostasol argue that Nattokinase accompanying Prostasol will protect against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), yet, if such protection is necessary, the manufacturers of Prostasol are encouraging its use as a herbal treatment and not acknowledging the presence of DES and not cautioning against the possibility of DVT.  

Personally, I would avoid the use of Prostasol and certainly not recommend patients consider adding this product to their treatment considerations.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=10577" rel="nofollow">A prior Danish report</a> advises that analysis of Prostasol determined the presence of diethystilbestrol (DES) and prohibits its distribution.</p>
<p>Proponents of Prostasol argue that Nattokinase accompanying Prostasol will protect against deep-vein thrombosis (DVT), yet, if such protection is necessary, the manufacturers of Prostasol are encouraging its use as a herbal treatment and not acknowledging the presence of DES and not cautioning against the possibility of DVT.  </p>
<p>Personally, I would avoid the use of Prostasol and certainly not recommend patients consider adding this product to their treatment considerations.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Is adjuvant EBRT the new standard for locally advanced disease post-RP? by Charles (Chuck) Maack</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/15/is-adjuvant-ebrt-the-new-standard-for-locally-advanced-disease-post-rp/#comment-696</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles (Chuck) Maack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=614#comment-696</guid>
		<description>Among the many reports at the AUA conference earlier this year was that included in SWOG 8794 regarding radiation as adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy to patients with high risk disease. Well known Medical Oncologist Charles E. "Snuffy" Myers of the American Institute Diseases of the Prostate posted these remarks on the ProstateProblemsMailList back in May:

"From the comments, it is clear folks did not really appreciate the full impact of this study. This was not about salvage radiation, which is a whole different issue. This is about adjuvant radiation given shortly after surgery to those with high risk disease. I am neither a radiation oncologist nor a surgeon, but to me the results are stunning. Radiation given shortly after surgery dramatically and significantly reduced the risk of bone metastases. This is huge. It means that in these men, the cancer cells that ultimately would cause bone mets were still in the pelvis and sensitive to radiation! By the time you are talking about salvage radiation, that opportunity is gone and those cancer cells are already out at the bone site in those with high risk disease. Salvage radiation, on the other hand, only really works well for those with indolent, slow growing disease: PSA doubling time greater than 9 months, Gleason score 7 or less. Bottom line is that surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy will offer many men with high-risk disease a chance at being disease free long-term - perhaps even cured.

"I would point out that the same issues hold for adjuvant hormonal therapy after surgery rather than waiting to give hormonal therapy when metastatic disease appears."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Among the many reports at the AUA conference earlier this year was that included in SWOG 8794 regarding radiation as adjuvant therapy following radical prostatectomy to patients with high risk disease. Well known Medical Oncologist Charles E. &#8220;Snuffy&#8221; Myers of the American Institute Diseases of the Prostate posted these remarks on the ProstateProblemsMailList back in May:</p>
<p>&#8220;From the comments, it is clear folks did not really appreciate the full impact of this study. This was not about salvage radiation, which is a whole different issue. This is about adjuvant radiation given shortly after surgery to those with high risk disease. I am neither a radiation oncologist nor a surgeon, but to me the results are stunning. Radiation given shortly after surgery dramatically and significantly reduced the risk of bone metastases. This is huge. It means that in these men, the cancer cells that ultimately would cause bone mets were still in the pelvis and sensitive to radiation! By the time you are talking about salvage radiation, that opportunity is gone and those cancer cells are already out at the bone site in those with high risk disease. Salvage radiation, on the other hand, only really works well for those with indolent, slow growing disease: PSA doubling time greater than 9 months, Gleason score 7 or less. Bottom line is that surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy will offer many men with high-risk disease a chance at being disease free long-term - perhaps even cured.</p>
<p>&#8220;I would point out that the same issues hold for adjuvant hormonal therapy after surgery rather than waiting to give hormonal therapy when metastatic disease appears.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Satisfaction and regret after two types of radical prostatectomy by E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/08/satisfaction-and-regret-after-two-types-of-radical-prostatectomy/#comment-694</link>
		<dc:creator>E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:53:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=590#comment-694</guid>
		<description>Thanks for your comments, Mark. You might be interested in joining the &lt;a href="http://prostatecancerinfolink.ning.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;Social Network&lt;/a&gt;, where others can share with you how they have been able to deal with the (very common) side effects of surgery that you describe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for your comments, Mark. You might be interested in joining the <a href="http://prostatecancerinfolink.ning.com" rel="nofollow">Social Network</a>, where others can share with you how they have been able to deal with the (very common) side effects of surgery that you describe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How valuable is the PCA3 test? by E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/15/how-valuable-is-the-pca3-test/#comment-693</link>
		<dc:creator>E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-693</guid>
		<description>The rumor mill tells me that at least one of the major prostate cancer reference laboratories is entirely less than impressed by the potential value of the PCA3 test for all sorts of reasons. This would indeed, probably, be one of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The rumor mill tells me that at least one of the major prostate cancer reference laboratories is entirely less than impressed by the potential value of the PCA3 test for all sorts of reasons. This would indeed, probably, be one of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Satisfaction and regret after two types of radical prostatectomy by Mark</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/08/satisfaction-and-regret-after-two-types-of-radical-prostatectomy/#comment-692</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 14:28:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=590#comment-692</guid>
		<description>I underwent RALP in April 2008.   I am somewhat dissatisfied with my results, but it probably would have been that way had I chosen RRP.  I have mild incontinence (1 pad a day), depression, and sexual dysfunction.  Although I didn't take a lot of time to decide, I knew as much as I needed to make my decision.  My GS was 9, PSA 4.6 and I'm 52.  A man can't leave it up to the doctor to tell them all the pluses and minuses of surgery.  I knew what they were going to tell me before they did.  They told me it would most likely be organ-confined, but I knew over half are not once they go in (mine wasn't).  I experienced sexual dysfunction prior to surgery, so I knew I'd have problems aftwards.  My surgeon had done the most RALPs in our state, so I felt I was going with the best.  

I switched urologists before I finally decided on the doctor who did the surgery.  I did not like having to deal with his rude staff and he said it would take 6 weeks to schedule my surgery.  If a person does not feel comfortable with the doctor they have, I would consider that a red flag.  Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct with doctors.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I underwent RALP in April 2008.   I am somewhat dissatisfied with my results, but it probably would have been that way had I chosen RRP.  I have mild incontinence (1 pad a day), depression, and sexual dysfunction.  Although I didn&#8217;t take a lot of time to decide, I knew as much as I needed to make my decision.  My GS was 9, PSA 4.6 and I&#8217;m 52.  A man can&#8217;t leave it up to the doctor to tell them all the pluses and minuses of surgery.  I knew what they were going to tell me before they did.  They told me it would most likely be organ-confined, but I knew over half are not once they go in (mine wasn&#8217;t).  I experienced sexual dysfunction prior to surgery, so I knew I&#8217;d have problems aftwards.  My surgeon had done the most RALPs in our state, so I felt I was going with the best.  </p>
<p>I switched urologists before I finally decided on the doctor who did the surgery.  I did not like having to deal with his rude staff and he said it would take 6 weeks to schedule my surgery.  If a person does not feel comfortable with the doctor they have, I would consider that a red flag.  Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct with doctors.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How valuable is the PCA3 test? by Terry Herbert</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/15/how-valuable-is-the-pca3-test/#comment-690</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Herbert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:26:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=616#comment-690</guid>
		<description>Although not mentioned here, I understand that in calculating the PCA3 value, reference is made to the PSA test number. Given the inherent inaccuracy of that test and the wide range of results, surely the application of additional calculations would result in a less accurate value -- or at least a wide range?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although not mentioned here, I understand that in calculating the PCA3 value, reference is made to the PSA test number. Given the inherent inaccuracy of that test and the wide range of results, surely the application of additional calculations would result in a less accurate value &#8212; or at least a wide range?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Nothing to do with PCa but &#8230; by E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/01/nothing-to-do-with-pca-but/#comment-689</link>
		<dc:creator>E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:21:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=559#comment-689</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;An Advexin update:&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt; Shares of Introgen Therapeutics tumbled 20 percent yesterday after &lt;i&gt;TheStreet&lt;/i&gt;'s Adam Feuerstein questioned whether Advexin was as effective as the company has billed it. Feuerstein used Introgen's studies to make the case that the drug failed to measure up to the company's comments. 

Feuerstein is unapologetic. In his story he notes that he panned Introgen back in December with the following: "Introgen is a terrible company. Advexin is junk. The drug doesn't work. The data are manipulated and false. Management misleads."

Such are the trials of bringing new biotechnology to the healthcare market in the modern world. Is Advexin a valuable drug? Clearly you would need to ask people wiser than we are!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><i>An Advexin update:</i></b> Shares of Introgen Therapeutics tumbled 20 percent yesterday after <i>TheStreet</i>&#8217;s Adam Feuerstein questioned whether Advexin was as effective as the company has billed it. Feuerstein used Introgen&#8217;s studies to make the case that the drug failed to measure up to the company&#8217;s comments. </p>
<p>Feuerstein is unapologetic. In his story he notes that he panned Introgen back in December with the following: &#8220;Introgen is a terrible company. Advexin is junk. The drug doesn&#8217;t work. The data are manipulated and false. Management misleads.&#8221;</p>
<p>Such are the trials of bringing new biotechnology to the healthcare market in the modern world. Is Advexin a valuable drug? Clearly you would need to ask people wiser than we are!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ask Arthur &#8230; pretty much anything you like by Clark Grundler</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/questions/ask-arthur/#comment-685</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark Grundler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:45:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?page_id=28#comment-685</guid>
		<description>i can't seem to find out if denosumab is a bisphosphonate. I can't take bisphosphonates because of previous head and neck cancer radiation treatments which probably have caused osteoradionecrosis of my jaw, so denosumab is very interesting to me.

Thanks, Clark

&lt;strong&gt;Arthur replied:&lt;/strong&gt;

Dear Clark: Denosumab is &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; a bisphosphonate. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (“RANK-L”), a key mediator of the cells responsible for bone breakdown. However, since Arthur has seen only a small amount of adverse effects data related to the use of denosumab yet (and none in a cancer condition), he cannot tell you whether it has any of the same risks for ONJ as the bisphosphonates. Until full publication of the safety data from clinical trials, it may be difficult to know precisely what some of the less common side effects of denosumab might be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i can&#8217;t seem to find out if denosumab is a bisphosphonate. I can&#8217;t take bisphosphonates because of previous head and neck cancer radiation treatments which probably have caused osteoradionecrosis of my jaw, so denosumab is very interesting to me.</p>
<p>Thanks, Clark</p>
<p><strong>Arthur replied:</strong></p>
<p>Dear Clark: Denosumab is <em><strong>not</strong></em> a bisphosphonate. Denosumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that specifically targets the receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa B ligand (“RANK-L”), a key mediator of the cells responsible for bone breakdown. However, since Arthur has seen only a small amount of adverse effects data related to the use of denosumab yet (and none in a cancer condition), he cannot tell you whether it has any of the same risks for ONJ as the bisphosphonates. Until full publication of the safety data from clinical trials, it may be difficult to know precisely what some of the less common side effects of denosumab might be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Ask Arthur &#8230; pretty much anything you like by Walter</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/questions/ask-arthur/#comment-680</link>
		<dc:creator>Walter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:18:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/?page_id=28#comment-680</guid>
		<description>Within 6 months I went from 1.0 to PSA Total-4.9, free PSA 0.6. My physician asked me to wait 4 months which then showed a rise to 6.74. Biopsy revealed 5 cancer sites out of 12. He suggested that I go on hormonal therapy, which I did. At that time “Uropredict”: organ confined 22%, extraprostatic ext. 78%, Seminal vesicle 9%. Age 83, PSA 6.74, Gleason score 8, Clinical stage T2, Unifocal: no. I’ve rec’d 2 shots of Lupron, 3 mos. apart. Any suggestions? I’ve had no radiation.

&lt;strong&gt;Arthur responded as follows:&lt;/strong&gt;

This situation is very much one for individual discussion between you and your physician. You have signs of potentially aggressive disease; your PSA is still low; but you have a short PSA doubling time. It seems to Arthur that the key issues here are (a) whether the hormone therapy has dropped your PSA to zero and, if it has, then (b) how long can the hormone therapy keep your PSA down at zero. There are two things to ask your physician that might be helpful. The first is whether, if your PSA is maintained at zero, he thinks intermittent homrone therapy might be a possibility. The second is whether he would even consider referring you for radiation therapy. Arthur thinks it is only proper to inform you that radiation therapy may not be appropriate in someone of your age, but that also depends on all sorts of other health information that you have not provided. Radiotherapy &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;might&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; be appropriate in a "young" 83-year-old with a 10-year life expectancy, for example. Having said all that, the first thing you need to know from your physician is what your PSA is &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;now&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; -- after the initial few months of hormone therapy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Within 6 months I went from 1.0 to PSA Total-4.9, free PSA 0.6. My physician asked me to wait 4 months which then showed a rise to 6.74. Biopsy revealed 5 cancer sites out of 12. He suggested that I go on hormonal therapy, which I did. At that time “Uropredict”: organ confined 22%, extraprostatic ext. 78%, Seminal vesicle 9%. Age 83, PSA 6.74, Gleason score 8, Clinical stage T2, Unifocal: no. I’ve rec’d 2 shots of Lupron, 3 mos. apart. Any suggestions? I’ve had no radiation.</p>
<p><strong>Arthur responded as follows:</strong></p>
<p>This situation is very much one for individual discussion between you and your physician. You have signs of potentially aggressive disease; your PSA is still low; but you have a short PSA doubling time. It seems to Arthur that the key issues here are (a) whether the hormone therapy has dropped your PSA to zero and, if it has, then (b) how long can the hormone therapy keep your PSA down at zero. There are two things to ask your physician that might be helpful. The first is whether, if your PSA is maintained at zero, he thinks intermittent homrone therapy might be a possibility. The second is whether he would even consider referring you for radiation therapy. Arthur thinks it is only proper to inform you that radiation therapy may not be appropriate in someone of your age, but that also depends on all sorts of other health information that you have not provided. Radiotherapy <em><strong>might</strong></em> be appropriate in a &#8220;young&#8221; 83-year-old with a 10-year life expectancy, for example. Having said all that, the first thing you need to know from your physician is what your PSA is <em><strong>now</strong></em> &#8212; after the initial few months of hormone therapy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Satisfaction and regret after two types of radical prostatectomy by E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</title>
		<link>http://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2008/07/08/satisfaction-and-regret-after-two-types-of-radical-prostatectomy/#comment-671</link>
		<dc:creator>E. Michael D. ("Mike") Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://talkaboutprostatecancer.wordpress.com/?p=590#comment-671</guid>
		<description>Ginnie: If you want to talk to the "good doctor" I suggest you join the &lt;a href="http://prostatecancerinfolink.ning.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;social network&lt;/a&gt;. He ain't perfect. None of us are. And yes, he does give patients his personal cell phone number. Often. You can ask some of them. And he's on the social network nearly every day (sometimes even when he's traveling). Finally, there's a difference between believing in the type of surgery one provides and being biased about it. I wouldn't want a surgeon who didn't believe in the type of surgery (s)he provided. Would you? But I also wouldn't want one that thought (s)he was God's gift to medicine.

And would I go to him for surgery if I needed it? &lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;NO!&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; But that's because I wouldn't want to have to ask one of my friends to operate on me. And I know other people just as good (some maybe even better) who I would be happy to go to.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ginnie: If you want to talk to the &#8220;good doctor&#8221; I suggest you join the <a href="http://prostatecancerinfolink.ning.com/" rel="nofollow">social network</a>. He ain&#8217;t perfect. None of us are. And yes, he does give patients his personal cell phone number. Often. You can ask some of them. And he&#8217;s on the social network nearly every day (sometimes even when he&#8217;s traveling). Finally, there&#8217;s a difference between believing in the type of surgery one provides and being biased about it. I wouldn&#8217;t want a surgeon who didn&#8217;t believe in the type of surgery (s)he provided. Would you? But I also wouldn&#8217;t want one that thought (s)he was God&#8217;s gift to medicine.</p>
<p>And would I go to him for surgery if I needed it? <i><b>NO!</b></i> But that&#8217;s because I wouldn&#8217;t want to have to ask one of my friends to operate on me. And I know other people just as good (some maybe even better) who I would be happy to go to.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
