Hey, THANKS SO MUCH FOR POSTING THAT STUDY.
I read it with much more than a passing interest.
Obviously, some data is yet to be reported.
For me, it makes me feel much better in the sense that I was wondering if my reluctance to jump into HT triggered my doctor's suggestion on doing the avodart. But with this study obviously it is a legitimate investigational possibility. THIS IS ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF SEEING SOME OF THE TOP ONCOLOGISTS SPECIALIZING IN PC -- THEY ARE UP ON THE STUDIES.
Now, here is my take on this. Maybe some of you can glean more from the article (Tony -- please post when you get some more information on it):
During the 28 months of the study:
82 out of 144 placebo participants had a PSA doubling whereas only 41 of the 146 avodart folks had it.
During the first year:
50 our of 144 placebo folks had a doubling of their PSA whereas 15 our of the 146 did.
This is very encouraging. Now, it would be interesting to see a division based on prior PSADT. For example, for the with PSADT of <3 months (before starting the study) what happened? What about those in the 3-6 month prior PSADT?
I suspect most of those 15 whose PSA doubled within a year had a prior fast PSADT. Or, maybe not. Maybe the Gleason score was a better predictor? What about margins or SVI?
I would love to play with this data!
The study also looked at those whose PC progressed. The definition of progression was quite involved. The criteria included a 50% PSA increase, but there were other criteria as well. For PC progression (I assume over the 28 months):
49 out of 144 (placebo)
25 out of 146 (avodart)
There are tons of other metrics in the report.
On the negative side, the study seems to be run by Glaxo. My guess is they make avodart! So, that's a big red flag to me.