Cancer Prevention - Exposing the Nonprofits

A recent article in the New York Times mentioned some of the shocking points you'll find on the Cancer Prevention Coalition's website. Some of the big "not-for-profit" organizations that are supposedly fighting cancer are actually in bed with the industries that contribute to the increase in cancer!

Be sure to browse the site to learn more about cancer and how the ACS has actually opposed measures to reduce the risk of cancer.

PSA Still GoingUp

My husband went back to the urologist for a follow-up appointment. He had his prostate removed last summer and although his PSA dropped almost to zero, it soon started creeping back up. This indicates that the cancer had already left the prostate and may eventually become a problem.

The urologist said that when his PSA reaches 10 he should start hormone therapy. At the present rate, this will take about a year.

The doctor also prescribed Viagra, since Cialis caused severe leg pain. When we picked up the prescription for Viagra, we experienced sticker shock. The pills cost $12 each AFTER the insurance company's discount. Husband did not want to pay that much, but I insisted that he try it. Not because I am anxious that he "perform" but rather because the operation took away just about all feeling "down there" and he is a bit depressed about it.

The doctor prescribed that he take 3 pills a week until circulation returns to the area, but at the high price for the medication, he probably won't take that much.

Medicine has much to learn about Prostate Cancer

Outcomes Vary for Prostate Cancer Patients Choosing Surgery; Overall, No Treatment Proven Superior

Press Release Date: February 4, 2008

Patients who undergo complete prostate removal are less likely to experience urinary incontinence or other complications if the operation is done by an experienced surgeon in a hospital that does many of the procedures, according to a report funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

However, the new report concludes that scientific evidence has not established surgery or any other single treatment as superior for all men. The analysis compared the effectiveness and risks of eight prostate cancer treatments, ranging from prostate removal to radioactive implants to no treatment. An article based on the report is posted today in the online version of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

"This report is a reminder that patient outcomes may vary according to treatment settings," said AHRQ Director Carolyn M. Clancy, M.D. "But this analysis also underscores a broader message: when it comes to prostate cancer, we have much to learn about which treatments work best, and patients should be informed about the benefits and harms of treatment options."

See the rest at AHRQ.GOV News
It also states that "All treatment options cause health problems, primarily urinary incontinence, bowel problems and erectile dysfunction. The chances of bowel problems or sexual dysfunction are similar for surgery and external radiation. Leaking of urine is at least six times more likely among surgery patients than those treated by external radiation."

It's discouraging that the "best" treatment is still unclear. The more I read about medicine, the more I think we are in the dark ages.

Trans fats may cause Prostate Tumors

1/17/2008 - Increased intakes of trans-fatty acids may increase the risk of non-aggressive prostate tumours by about 100 per cent, suggests new research from Harvard.
The study followed almost 15,000 men over 13 years and piles further pressure on the fatty acids after significant prostate cancer risk increases were observed for higher intakes of the trans isomers of oleic and linoleic acids.

"Blood levels of trans isomers of oleic and linoleic acids are associated with an increased risk of non-aggressive prostate tumours," wrote lead author Jorge Chavarro in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

"As this type of tumours represents a large proportion of prostate cancer detected using prostate-specific antigen screening, these findings may have implications for the prevention of prostate cancer."

For more see http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=82603

Connection between Diabetes and Prostate Cancer

I came across this on Gabe Mirkin's site:

Your body produces large numbers of cancer cells, and your immunity searches out and kills these cells. Diabetes damages a person's immunity and interferes with a person's ability to kill cancer cells. That's why people with diabetes are at increased risk for certain types of cancers. People who store fat primarily in their bellies are at high risk for diabetes and also prostate cancer. Even if they are not overweight, men who have very little fat in their hips may have high blood insulin levels and are also at increased risk for diabetes and prostate cancer. If you store fat primarily in your belly, cut back of foods that contain flour, such as bakery products and pastas, and foods that have added sugar. You are at increased risk for diabetes and probably prostate cancer.

J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 Jan 1;95(1):67-71. Insulin resistance and prostate cancer risk. Hsing AW, Gao YT, Chua S Jr, Deng J, Stanczyk FZ. A. W. Hsing, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.

Source: http://www.drmirkin.com/men/1706.html

The Big C

I've put off writing this entry because I know I need to discuss the biggest health issue facing our family: my husband's cancer. It's prostate cancer, discovered a year ago. A bit scary to write about - I feel best when not thinking about it. But let me give you a summary.

A high PSA score indicated that a biopsy was warranted, at least in the opinion of his doctors. The biopsy revealed prostate cancer that appeared to be confined to the prostate. The urologist gave us a book about prostate cancer and suggested that we consider the options carefully. He personally felt that surgery was a suitable treatment.

Other tests indicated that the cancer had probably not spread yet. For several months, we studied the options, worried, and procrastinated. My husband (I'll call him Knute) consulted another urologist, followed by a surgeon at UVA Hospital and finally a surgeon at GWU Hospital. The latter had done hundreds of robot-assisted surgeries. So eventually Knute had robotic surgery to remove the prostate at GWU Hospital.

The surgery went smoothly and he came home the next day. Three months later we returned to the surgeon's office for a follow-up visit. Unfortunately, Knute's PSA level turned out to be .85, and it is supposed to be lower than than .2 after prostatectomy. This indicated that not all the cancer had been removed. The surgeon said that eventually Knute would want additional treatment, probably hormone therapy, to slow the progress of the cancer.

My husband does not want hormone treatment because (a) it has unpleasant side effects and (b) it does not cure the cancer anyway, just slows it down for a few years. Fortunately he does not have to decide yet because the doctors feel that he should wait until his PSA doubles before starting it.

We did visit a radiologist for another opinion. She recommend radiation treatment of the area where the prostate was removed because it might help. The other doctors, however, did not feel that the slight chance that it would work was worth the risks of radiation.

Meanwhile, my husband is still struggling to overcome the side-effects of the prostatectomy. They are the common problems result from this surgery: incontinence and impotence. He has made tremendous progress with continence, probably because he does Kegel exercises. However, he is still impotent and it has been six months since the operation. He has read that it can take a year to overcome this so we are not alarmed, although he feels less manly and sometimes gets depressed with the situation.

He is 62. If the cancer grows slowly, it could take a decade or more before it debilitates him. But it is too soon to know how much time ...

Still, we never know how much time we have left on this earth. At 62, he would only have a few decades left of good health even without cancer. And since he also has diabetes, he faces the other health risks that are known to face diabetics.

One thing that we have been forced to face is that we are aging and that vigorous years ahead are limited for us. Even if we are both alive 15 years from now, we will probably be less able to do active things than we are now. So we need to enjoy what we can.