While I agree with most of Tall Allen ' s posts, I urge caution with Nabid's study. Never published, only presented ar ASCO. The cohort is broadly drawn, no info about
how many G9s were in it, for example. I don't see how a G9 5+4 T3 is in the same risk group as a G7 3+4 T3, but they would be in this study. There are so few G9s compared to G7s, that this type of blurring makes the results difficult to apply specifically. No details of the distribution in his study's cohort.
We have discussed this one more than once. I disliked HT as much as anyone, but it is quite arguable, and to me stretching that study, to say definitively that it showed 18 months as good as 36 months for *anyone* in such a broadly constructed cohort..
If you're in a high risk category, please discuss this with your oncologist. I'd hate to see guys bail on HT because somebody on the Internet said you don't need more than 18 months. I don't think we know that yet.
Nabid's work is encouraging, but I don't see it as definitive yet
Finally, my very conservative oncologist said given the present state of research, she would rather find out 10 years from now that 3 hears HT was too much, than that 18 months wasn't enough..
Bx: 6/12 pos, G9=5+4 (80%, 60%), 4+5 (2@100%, 80%, 10%), PNI+
cT3a (3TMRI: Bilateral EPE, NVB+, SV-, LN-)
Date PSA fPSA
9/12 4.1 15%
3/13 5.2 12% PCA3=31
IGRT by IMRT, 44 done 8/28/13: 50.4 Gy pelvic nodes, 79.2 Gy prostate
ADT2 3 yrs: Lupron/Casodex
Post: (age now 58)
<0.1 PSA (w/ADT2): 2013:8,11 - 2014:2,5,8,11, 2015:3,7,11, 2016:2,5
Post Edited (Redwing57) : 6/11/2016 7:38:52 PM (GMT-6)