So worried

Thank you so so much Lyn. Such a detailed explanation and makes so much more sense to me now. Gives me hope too that it could be first scenario, but staying realistic and know more treatment may be needed. Will probably be later in the year before the HT is out of the system so should know more then x

From memory, I think it was the RADICALS team that then got involved and concluded that 3 years provides no benefit over 18 months and comes with 18 months more side effects and associated drop in quality of life, so we now see far more men doing 3 months HT prior to RT and 15 or 18 months post-RT. The current RADICALS trial is comparing 6 months HT with 2 years - it will be interesting to see what conclusion they come to.

Thanks Lyn. Yes, I guess it does come down to stats and that takes time to gather, like 10 years for a 10 year survival rate but the QOL issues are significant. It sounds, from what you're saying, that taking it out to 10 years for breast cancer made no difference to the chances of recurrence but simply put things on hold. That also sounds like it could mean an extra 10 years of life for those who would have a recurrence but 10 years difficult and unnecessary years of HT for those who wouldn't have a recurrence. I don't know how tolerable the HT for women with breast cancer might be but 10 years is a hell of a long time.

Even with PCa, HT the time adds up. A few months of HT before RT, plus 3 years of HT, plus another ~10-12 months of time to re-start testosterone production and it's getting close to 5 years of a treatment that can cause bone density problems, heart problems, diminished physical ability [apart from Irun 😀], QOL probs. and possibly contribute to a shorter lifespan.

I will be pushing my oncologist for an 18 month span and failing that, making a personal choice to drop it at 2 years.

Jules 

Edited by member 23 Jan 2022 at 02:53  | Reason: Not specified