This patient support community is for discussions relating to advanced or metastatic
prostate cancer, biopsy, bone scan, blood in urine or semen, benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), CT scan, cystoscopy, erectile dysfunction (ED), hormone therapy, incontinence, pain (abdomen, lower back or hip), PSA test, prostatitis, radiation therapy, rectal exam, recurrent cancer, screening, staging (tumor size, metastasis), transrectal ultrasound, and urinary difficulty, burning, or urgency (leaking).
Since you are only 67 (and estimates are, in the absence of any other disease - you are expected to live another 15 years), you have 3 choices. There is no clear evidence to favor one over the other.
The first is to monitor and if progression of disease is imminent, then intervention would be done.
The other option is to intervene with either surgery and radiation.
Try to find out how localized is the disease. If the disease extends beyond one lobe of the prostate - then observation would not be equivalent with radiation or surgery in terms of outcomes. There would be some differences with post-therapy complications. These complications will vary from procedure to procedure (there are a number of surgical options, there are open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted) and machine to machine (different radiation modes of delivery), so it would be best to find out what is available to you and then make a decision.
On equivalent outcomes: Yes, I agree with Dr Bubley that there is no proven advantage for going for intervention over a wait and see approach.
On reasons why some men prefer to go for treatment:
As I said before it will all come down to a value judgment. The advantages of the wait and see policy is that you avoid any complications of the interventions. The disadvantage is that, in the event that disease progresses - it may progress to a stage that is no longer curable, surgery may be harder to perform, radiation would involve larger fields - so there may be more complications with the intervention. Currently, there is not enough data to determine which patients will fail on a wait and see policy.
As I posted before, the decision calls for a personality assessment. Some patients take on risks more than others.
Hope this helped.
Blood loss – surgery can be associated with much blood loss, hence radiation would mean avoiding transfusion related risks and side-effects. Robotic surgery is associated with less bleeding, so there may be no advantage with radiation.
Anesthesia complications – surgery will require anesthesia, so would seed implants/brachytherapy, it would be avoided by external beam radiation.
Erectile dysfunction – this is hard to evaluate. Radiation shows short term preservation of erectile function – but the risk of dysfunction actually increases over time. For surgery, if the nerves are included in the dissection field – dysfunction would be evident soon after recovery from the surgery.
Bowel and bladder complications – almost 50% of patients undergoing radiation have symptoms during treatment, for surgery this is not a large issue, though problems with bloody urine do occur during the recovery period.
Treatment period – external beam radiation usually takes several weeks, whereas surgery and seed implants can be done in one day.
Institution volume – here is a tough one to evaluate. OF course, surgeons who perform a high-volume of prostatectomies would perform the surgery better than other surgeons. If the hospital is known more for its surgeries than its radiation facility, then surgeon skill wouldn’t be an issue. The radiation doses are generally planned and delivered depending on the machine, so there is little if any variation present. Put another way, while there is evidence that there is equivalence, surgery would be inferior if the surgeon is not very experienced.
Others: try to find out if you are indeed a candidate for seed implants. Your prostate is fairly small and there may be more urine/voiding problems if you take this option.
Re robotic surgery: robotic surgery is fairly new, my main concern here is the experience of the user. If your surgeon is more used to performing open prostatectomies, then this may be the way to go.