I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error

12>

Treatment of by Castration?

User
Posted 15 Feb 2022 at 19:07

As someone new to this community I am seeking advice or experience of castration as opposed to periodic injections of testosterone inhibitors, the latter being the suggested treatment by my Consultant when I come off the 'Watch & Wait' programme; likely following my 3 monthly PSA blood test next month.

I suggested this alternative treatment as although otherwise very active and fit for my age (88 in April) I'm a widower with no close relationships other than my offspring, so see this is an apparently more effective treatment. My Consultant readily agreed to carry out the necessary, more refined operation of partial castration that has the required effect. I can find little information on this option. I can however, well understand that it will likely apply only to those in a similar position to myself.

Waysend

User
Posted 15 Feb 2022 at 20:01
Hi Waysend,

we had a member Alex who went for surgical castration rather than chemical and did well for a number of years. We have also had a couple of family members whose men had castration, in one case because of other medications and in the other, because of existing mental health issues. Surgical castration is still used overseas as well, particularly in countries where you have to pay for treatment and hormone therapy is too expensive for many.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 20 Feb 2022 at 13:06

The paper is interesting, but missing some things I would want to know.

It doesn't say what testosterone levels were achieved in the two cases. Castrate level is usually quoted as 1.2nmol/l which is what I was presuming castration normally achieved (but I don't know if that's the case). GnRH usually does better testosterone suppression than this at around 0.2-0.7nmol/l in cases I know, but as stated in the paper, there are a few percent of cases where GnRH doesn't get down to castrate level or microsurges above just before next injection. The paper suggests without showing any evidence that castration achieves a better testosterone suppression which is different to my assumption above, but the paper then points out that the side effect evidence doesn't match a better testosterone suppression.

If there is a difference in testosterone levels between the two methods, then an important discussion is a comparison of the length of time to become hormone resistant at those different levels, which isn't there. What would concern me is if fewer potential side effects resulted from slightly higher testosterone levels which resulted in shorter time to hormone resistance. You might still choose to go that route, but it would be good to have that knowledge up-front when making the choice.

Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Posted 15 Feb 2022 at 20:01
Hi Waysend,

we had a member Alex who went for surgical castration rather than chemical and did well for a number of years. We have also had a couple of family members whose men had castration, in one case because of other medications and in the other, because of existing mental health issues. Surgical castration is still used overseas as well, particularly in countries where you have to pay for treatment and hormone therapy is too expensive for many.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 15 Feb 2022 at 22:03

Interesting paper on this. It suggests Orchiectomy has several advantages over chemical castration but means Intermittent HT holidays can't be taken with Orchiectomy. https://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2015/12/30/surgical-orchiectomy-vs-medical-castration-in-treatment-of-metastatic-prostate-cancer/

 

Edited by member 15 Feb 2022 at 22:03  | Reason: to highlight link

Barry
User
Posted 16 Feb 2022 at 01:15

I didn't have much of a problem with my two years of HT, but I'm glad to have my mojo back.

Castration is irreversible, the injections can be stopped. I would consider the injections first and then make a decision about castration after six months.

Dave

User
Posted 16 Feb 2022 at 04:44

Hi,

I have recently been advised that I need to go back on HT for life. PSA now 3.6 following prostatectomy in 2017. Follow up RT and 22mth HT in 2018. Awaiting results of CT and Bone scans currently. I asked about the option of surgical castration instead of medical. My  Oncologist discussed with senior and they were OK with that option and have referred me to urology team.

I am (only) 64, married and sexually active but think it would be the best treatment choice for me based on my earlier HT experience and what Info I have found.

It is one treatment option that doesn't have a lot of documented personal experience on this site. So if nothing else I might be able to add a personal perspective for reference by others.

Will keep you posted.

Regards

J

User
Posted 16 Feb 2022 at 05:18

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
I am (only) 64, married and sexually active but think it would be the best treatment choice for me based on my earlier HT experience and what Info I have found.

Have you any information to suggest that castration would be more tolerable than HT was? I've found that HT is difficult in several ways. Physically and mentally it's felt a little like I've aged 10 years in an instant, which is tolerable because it should be largely reversible when the treatment finishes but if castration causes the same changes and is irreversible, it might not be a great option.

Jules

 

 

User
Posted 16 Feb 2022 at 12:43

The side effects of hormone therapy are not directly due to the drugs, but due to loss of Testosterone, so I really doubt they'll be much different with castration. I have talked with a few guys considering castration to avoid the side effects, but I think that's incorrect logic. As pointed out, castration doesn't give you the option of intermittent hormone therapy either, or possibly other treatments not yet developed.

User
Posted 16 Feb 2022 at 19:11

Many thanks to the responders to my query. I am so new to this that I don't know if there is a way of directly messaging someones comment or indeed, request - any help/info on this would be appreciated.

As an aside the general suggestion points out the limitation of subsequent treatment choice. I can well understand the concerns of those younger and also the sexually active. They don't come into my decision process. For my generation I'm on borrowed time age wise. I have level 9 cancer aggression, 10 being the highest. I take daily prednisolone medication to reduce my immunity over reaction problem. Question: why such slow PSA progression? I put this to my Consultant stating that the hormone in the pred. med. was delaying progress and he agreed it likely. My same thought process was to eliminate the source rather than the interference practice, so partial castration and again he agreed. I had read the article shown on Barry's response, but that has been all the  info. I have found, hence my initial posting

User
Posted 17 Feb 2022 at 00:10

At this point it might be helpful if you gave us some more information on your PCa. I'm not sure what you mean about slow progress with your PSA score. You don't appear to be on a testosterone inhibitor, so are you talking about it going up or down?

For comparison, I'm 74, have a Gleason score of 9 and have had radiotherapy followed by HT [Zoladex]. Like you, I don't rate sexual performance as vital. What I've found with Zoladex is that while it does a great job of keeping my psa down post RT, it does have some undesirable side effects, both physical and mental, that I could well do without. If indeed castration would have the same effect it would not be a great deal of fun.

As others have suggested above, it might be worth trying out the injections first before you make your decision.

Responses to treatment vary between people so you might find a drug like Zoladex to be quite acceptable long term. Another factor here could be your current testosterone level. At 87 it might already be quite low so you might have less trouble adjusting to its disappearance than others who have a higher testosterone level.

 

Jules

 

 

User
Posted 17 Feb 2022 at 01:41
Waysend, you are correct - prednisolone can act as an anti-androgen and reduce some of your male hormone production. It is very unusual to be on active surveillance / watchful waiting with such a high Gleason score (you say you are a G9?) so I assume there is a good reason that your urologist decided not to start active treatment until your PSA reaches 50.

My instinct is that surgeons don't readily agree to remove someone's testicles so if your consultant has agreed that it is a reasonable way forward for you, go for it. Many men will react with horror because they can't imagine taking that decision themselves but data suggests that the side effects are slightly less than with hormone therapy and since the side effects of prednisolone can be significant, you perhaps don't want to add more breathlessness, etc to the mix?

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 11:56

Thanks for responding. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer in August 2017 with a PSA marker of 11. Due to age/84 and low PSA and my wish of life quality not quantity I was put on their ‘watch & wait’ prog., initially with blood tests every 6 months then as the count steadily rose this changed to 3 monthly, specifically around the time when the laser op in February 2020 revealed the level of cancer aggressiveness. 

During the height of pandemic I was placed into the care of my local surgery with a request to transfer me back to my Consultant when score reached 30. This happened in late March at score 35. Scores for 2021: Jan 27  Mar 35 June 39  Oct 38(?)  Dec 45. The stated intention has been to start treatment of 3 monthly hormone injections at PSA level 50. In a recent telephone discussion with my consultant I suggested a surgical rather than chemical option. He readily agreed to do this and has confirmed this in writing to my local  doctor. I’m only committed unless adverse information emerges. Bear in mind that my prednisolone medication has resulted (it now appears) as my having some experience of chem. cast.

Take care,  Mike

 

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 12:23

Hello to other responders. It seems I can only directly reply to 1responder directly, which I have just done, making a ‘round robin’ response necessary to others comments:-

LynEyre - Hi Lyn, bear in mind the high score mentioned only became evident 2.5 years after initial diagnosis and the on=going development has likely been affected by Covid lockdown. There have been intervening scans and tests in the 2017-20 period and was told to immediately report if bone pain was being experienced. In relation to that I have wondered if prednisolone would suppress early bone pain experience but hey, life goes on! Interestingly another responder also had his consultant’s agreement to the surgery option. My feeling is that there are normally no volunteers so the  medical  profession are anxious for outcome results and experience.

Take care, Mike

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 12:50

Hi Jules, the only trial report I was able to find so far is fortunately displayed on Old Barry’s comments recently displayed. It is quite detailed and the bottom line is an overal better outcome but a higher incidence of deaths. Unfortunately there is no detail regards age/health of the comparison groups, but as I seek quality rather than life quantity that doesn’t relate to me. There have been other published reports of disquieted relating to why this isn’t a more wide spread option.

Take care,  Mike

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 12:53

Hi Lyn, I’m still trying to get to grips with this system and only now have the reply pointer appeared against your posting. I therefore post a named reply to you instead. Kind regards,  Mike

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 12:58

Hi Dave, thanks for your response. I can see from your displayed photo that your situation and needs differ considerably from mine so that needs to be borne in mind. Kind regards,  Mike

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 18:29

Quote:
Waysend;264884

 My feeling is that there are normally no volunteers so the  medical  profession are anxious for outcome results and experience.

Take care, Mike

On the contrary; before HT was discovered, all men were surgically castrated and it is still a common treatment in some African and Asian countries so there is plenty of data regarding its efficacy 

If you want to show who you are replying to, you can click on the little speech marks next to their post. Or you can just start your response with the name of the person, as you have done here. 

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 19 Feb 2022 at 10:01

Thanks for your response Lyn, but it does raise the question of why I was advised that my treatment would be injections rather than ‘these are your options’?.

Also, with the potentially huge numbers of men in the countries you indicate having initially the only option of surgery, are they now offered both treatments to choose from? Are there any resulting statistical data of the individual treatment outcomes in terms of side affefects during treatment and on-going survival?

You too take care, Kind regards,  Mike

 

User
Posted 19 Feb 2022 at 11:25
Because surgical castration is not routinely offered on the NHS now - for almost all men, hormone treatment is a better option because it can be stopped if the side effects are too bad.

Not sure I understand your second question? Men suitable for prostatectomy wouldn't have their testicles removed. But if they are diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer and can't afford the hormones, surgical castration is their only option.

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 20 Feb 2022 at 01:26

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
It is quite detailed and the bottom line is an overal better outcome but a higher incidence of deaths.

 

Mike, I read through the study link given by Old Barry and so far as I can see castration appears to have several advantages ... reduced chance of fractures, lower risk of peripheral arterial disease and lower risk of cardiac related complications. I couldn't see anything a higher incidence of death. Are you talking about risk involved with the operation/general anaesthetic? The advantages are surprising, given you lose testosterone either way but there is a rather technical description of why that might be the case in this article:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2476248

Looks like a good option!

Jules

Edited by member 20 Feb 2022 at 03:47  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 20 Feb 2022 at 12:36

Thanks Lyn, helpful as always.  Kind regards,  Mike

 
Forum Jump  
12>
©2025 Prostate Cancer UK