Prostate Cancer - some questions

Supercell

If an immediate family member is diagnosed with Prostate cancer, say the father, are his sons at a higher risk than the general population?

If so should they get checked out more frequently .

My father was diagnosed with it at 70 years old and is doing as well as can be expected in the circumstances. He has a sound mind and has had a good life and its treatable so far, but this isn't a PI post, more a fact finding one.

In such a case, when should the son's start getting tested, how often, is annually enough?

Given that he didn't get it until he was 70 does that mean his offspring are likely to develop it later in life rather than earlier, is there any correlation?

Its strange, up until recently I though no way hose was anyone going poking around my bumhole but now I realise a few minutes of discomfort can massively affect my life (and my loved ones).

Is there anything the offspring of a parent with this can do to prevent themselves developing it?...exercise more..eat more of a certain vitamin..is there anything that helps lessen the risk?

I've looked online and some sites say that it is hereditary and others say only some types are, are there any types that have no hereditary correlation and what are they?

Thanks to anyone with some of the answers.

deadhead13

The Irish Cancer Society have a Prostrate Cancer Information Service, there is a freephone number on their website. There is also some general information on there which might answer some of your questions.

http://www.cancer.ie/prostate/

milod

Hi OP, my own father is in the final stages of Prostate cancer at age 74, and is on chemotherapy, having originally been operated on for an enlarged prostate about 8 years ago.

I had to change GPs before my own worries were taken seriously, even though a relatively simple blood test (PSA) can rule out prostate issues. They don't normally test for this until you're in your 50s, but there are several schools of though on this issue.

You don't mention you own age OP, but if your dad's 70, you're probably in your 40's? In my case, at age 44, I thought it was reasonable to ask for a test given the possible hereditary issues. As for prevention? pretty much all you can do is drink cranberry juice and eat melon seeds apparently! My father was a smoker most of his life, so that may have contributed to the condition, but the statistics are sketchy on cause and prevention I'm afraid.

BTW, the finger/bum thing is further down the line, so don't worry about it. And, as you've realised, it's a small price to pay for peace of mind.

Wibbs

milod wrote: »

I had to change GPs before my own worries were taken seriously, even though a relatively simple blood test (PSA) can rule out prostate issues.

+1.

They don't normally test for this until you're in your 50s, but there are several schools of though on this issue.

You don't mention you own age OP, but if your dad's 70, you're probably in your 40's? In my case, at age 44, I thought it was reasonable to ask for a test given the possible hereditary issues.

My thoughts as well. I'd be getting one after 35 if there was a history. Get a full picture of your prostate health over the years. If you have women in the family with a history of breast cancer that's another less well known and less obvious risk factor. Similar genes may be involved I gather.

As for prevention? pretty much all you can do is drink cranberry juice and eat melon seeds apparently!

and apparently have more sex. I suppose sorting oneself out regularly would work as well. Some studies found men with more active sex lives had a lower risk. I suppose as seminal fluid was flushed from the prostate more often. Good prescription anyway. Though getting a doc to do up said prescription with daily doses to bring to your partner may cause raised eyebrows:D Tomatoes as well. Lycopene found in tomatoes has shown some preventative effect. Best in purees apparantly. one of the few foods that processing improves. Also shows protective effects against other cancers(esp skin cancer and mouth cancer)

Alun

milod wrote: »

I had to change GPs before my own worries were taken seriously, even though a relatively simple blood test (PSA) can rule out prostate issues. They don't normally test for this until you're in your 50s, but there are several schools of though on this issue.

Be careful drawing conclusions like that ... the PSA test is only a screening test and a negative result does not necessarily indicate there is no problem at all.

See http://www.patient.co.uk/health/PSA-Test-for-Prostate-Cancer.htm

What does the PSA test tell me about my prostate?

A raised PSA level can be a sign that you have prostate cancer. The PSA level is often raised well before any symptoms of prostate cancer develop. So the test can help to detect early prostate cancers (which may have a better chance of being successfully treated than more advanced prostate cancers.) As a rule, the higher the PSA level, the more likely that you have prostate cancer.

However, a raised PSA level can also occur in other prostate conditions such as some cases of benign enlargement of the prostate and inflammation of the prostate (prostatitis). In particular, a PSA level that is mildly or moderately raised has a good chance of being due to a benign condition, but could be due to prostate cancer. Overall, about 2 in 3 men with a raised PSA level do not have prostate cancer.

Also, if you do have prostate cancer, a single PSA test cannot tell you whether a prostate cancer is slow or fast growing.

And also, in some cases, the PSA level may be normal even when there is cancer there. Up to 1 in 5 men with prostate cancer have a normal PSA level.

So, the PSA test is not an accurate test for prostate cancer.

Condo131

Supercell wrote: »

If an immediate family member is diagnosed with Prostate cancer, say the father, are his sons at a higher risk than the general population?

Yes!
Going from memory, I think that with a father who has been diagnosed with PC, you are 6 times more likely to be contract PC. If its a sibling you are 4 times more likely

Supercell wrote: »

If so should they get checked out more frequently .

Not necessarily. The first thing is to get a PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen) test done. Your GP can do this. It's a simple blood test. There's no need to rush out and get this. PC is usually a slow growing cancer. If the PSA level is higher than "normal" (for your age) your GP may either do another PSA check, do a DRE (digital rectal Examination) or refer you on to a Urologist.

If your PSA is low - the VAST majority are, you probably don't need another test for a few years.

Be aware that a high PSA level doesn't necessarily mean that you have PC, it might be a number of other less serious things and might even be cleared by antibiotics.

Supercell wrote: »

My father was diagnosed with it at 70 years old and is doing as well as can be expected in the circumstances. He has a sound mind and has had a good life and its treatable so far, but this isn't a PI post, more a fact finding one.

It's often termed an "old man's disease" because the average age of diagnosis is 70. Unfortunately there are quite a few of us who were diagnosed in our 50's and even 40's! :eek:

Supercell wrote: »

In such a case, when should the son's start getting tested, how often, is annually enough?

There is a lot of controversy about testing asymptomatic men, but in this country 50 is the 'recommended' age to begin testing. In t he US, with a first degree relative with PC, they are recommending starting at 40. After the first test, I reckon every few years, maybe 5 max, is adequate.

A lot of GPs won't test a man unless he has symptoms of PC. Thank God my GP wasn't one of those or I'd be in deep do-do now!

Supercell wrote: »

Given that he didn't get it until he was 70 does that mean his offspring are likely to develop it later in life rather than earlier, is there any correlation?

afaik, there is none.

Supercell wrote: »

Its strange, up until recently I though no way hose was anyone going poking around my bumhole but now I realise a few minutes of discomfort can massively affect my life (and my loved ones).

You shouldn't need a DRE, unless your PSA is higher than expected.

Supercell wrote: »

Is there anything the offspring of a parent with this can do to prevent themselves developing it?...exercise more..eat more of a certain vitamin..is there anything that helps lessen the risk?

You'll find plenty of 'magic bullets' on the net, claiming to 'cure' PC. Supposedly Cranberry juice and tomatos (ugh!) help stave off PC. Exercise is a great help with your general health anyway. There are also studies that link obesity to PC. (I reckon that, with obesity, your heart will get you first!) A high fat diet is reputed to make you more susceptible to PC and 'burnt' red meat is also supposed to be bad.
If you exercise and are fit and are unfortunatel enough to be diagnosed, then your treatment will be much easier.

Supercell wrote: »

I've looked online and some sites say that it is hereditary and others say only some types are, are there any types that have no hereditary correlation and what are they?

There's plenty of rubbish on-line. The main hereditary risk factor is being of African descent.

The vast majority of men who are tested will not have a high PSA level. Of those who do have a high level, most will not have a level that warrants anything more than monitoring. Those who do will be recommended to have a biopsy and most of those will have indolent cancer (you will die of other causes long before the PC affects you). A relatively small number will have to have treatment.

A PSA test is a 'crude' instrument. It will not positively show that you have PC and it cannot differentiate between indolent and aggressive Cancer. Even with other tests, it is of limited value, but it (or one of it's variants) is about all we have at the mo'. Hopefully, in a few years, progress with genetic markers will move things on - we might even learn how to switch of the 'faulty' genes.

According to "Cancer in Ireland 1994-2004", between 2000 and 2004 there were 2750 annual cases of PC diagnosis in Ireland, with 745 deaths annually.

For the record, I am a Prostate Cancer survivor. In short, I was asymptomatic and had a simple blood test in April 2006, at age 53. This started the roller-coaster leading to a Radical Postatectomy in May 2008. I have made a remarkable recovery and, 17 months later, I'm running well again - been running competitively for 25 years, and it stood to me!. I had a VERY aggreessive form and, in the words of my surgeon, I was a "lucky, lucky man"

Hope this goes some way towards answering your queries.

BrianD3

Condo131 wrote: »

According to "Cancer in Ireland 1994-2004", between 2000 and 2004 there were 2750 annual cases of PC diagnosis in Ireland, with 745 deaths annually.

That is pretty bad - I have read a paper by Hermann Brenner which has the following statistics based on over 200,000 cases of prostate cancer in the US

Overall 5 year relative survival: 99%
Overall 10 year relative survival: 98%

5 year relative survival for patients with localised/regional disease: 100.0%
5 year relative survival for those with distant metastatic disease: 31%

Here is the paper. There is some interesting stuff in this, has stats for all the common cancer sites. The stats for cancer of the pancreas, esophagus and lung are dire
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/22/3274

Supercell

Condo131, thank you hugely for taking the time to answer all my queries one by one, I'm deeply grateful.
My father was tested two years ago and got the all clear, now apprently its too far gone to operate. He was under a lot of stress in the last couple of years though as he was building a new house himself, he had issues with the builders and suppliers, he's always up to something! So we think that might have had a part to play here.
I suppose that makes his version very aggressive, though they have given him 5-10 years which isn't bad considering his age. I just hope they can control the pain with drugs so he can keep up and about.

I'm 38 and my doc had already told me she recommended me getting tested when I turned 40, but I think I'll ask her to do this PSA next visit anyhow and have a quick poke around there to be sure.
I dunno if because his was so fast coming (or maybe they just didnt detect it a couple of years ago when he was last checked?) I'll get annual checks.

Looks like i'll have to develop a taste for cranberry juice too and eat more tomatoes

Wibbs

Condo131 wrote: »

Be aware that a high PSA level doesn't necessarily mean that you have PC, it might be a number of other less serious things and might even be cleared by antibiotics.

+1. I got a high PSA result in my late 20's. Yep. The doc asked for the tests as he was concerned about my symptoms. I got the finger up the bum no harm done as well. Not half as bad as it sounds, save for the embarrassment factor. Then again as he said he spent years slaving in college and ward and built up a wealth of knowledge and experience and here he was sticking his finger up someone bum, so why was I embarrassed? Good point sez I.

Turned out it was inflamed and just an infection. He at the time told me what Condo131 said a high PSA can mean many things.

Funny thing I remember reading about the disease, type 1 diabetics have a lower risk of it. Cant recall the values though.

BrainD3 wrote:

Here is the paper. There is some interesting stuff in this, has stats for all the common cancer sites. The stats for cancer of the pancreas, esophagus and lung are dire

Interesting stuff indeed. Its amazing how so many assume that it's game over when the C word is mentioned. Yes its obviously a serious condition, but it's far far more curable than many think and way more than even 15 years ago. Even with those three you mention. I know 3 people who have gone through esophageal cancer and 2 are ok years(over 5 anyway) later. The third is ok a year later. Actually I know 4. One of the users here got through it. Lung? I've known of again 3 off the top of my head who got it. 2 survived it.

I'll say one thing though all got it pretty early. Inc the lung, which is usually fairly far gone. One of the lung guys is a triathalon type. As fit as a butchers dog. Late 30's at the time. Very aware of his body. He noted his times or performance were dropping overnight. Thought it was a minor bug and his doctor thought the same. I mean at that age even with a smoker you'd likely think it was a bug of some nature. A non smoking fitness nut? He just had this feeling he couldnt put his finger on that something more was going on and he got a scan done after a bit of pushing(lives in the UK so there were more scanners I suppose). Found a walnut sized mass IIRC deep in one of the lobes and turned out it was malignant. Hadn't had a chance to spread though so was well operable. That's easily 8 odd years ago. Odds are one thing and helpful yes, but individuals can vary and respond to treatment soooo much.

Getting regular checks to catch it early is everything.

Condo131

Wibbs wrote: »

Its amazing how so many assume that it's game over when the C word is mentioned.

True...However some refuse to lie down. The follow on is here.

...............and these are only a few of very many inspiring Cancer Survivors.

Wibbs wrote: »

Getting regular checks to catch it early is everything.

Think of it as your smoke alarm - Its your early warning system.

lazygal

Hi OP
I hope you'll forgive me jumping into this thread, as a woman I'm not experienced with prostate cancer but I have a lot (sadly) of experience with another type of cancer.
My family has been told a type of cancer at least six of us have had is not genetic/hereditary but after the incidence we have had we have insisted on genetic counselling to gauge each of my silbings and my level of risk for the cancer than seems to run in our family.
So my advice would be to demand screening for you and any male silbings/cousins/other family members because I would rather be thought of as a nuisance who had to be accomodated than leaving it up to chance and being fobbed off by the medical profession. We almost had to take legal action to get the tests required. I'm currently waiting on results for the cancer I might develop. Let me tell you, it is easier waiting for these results than being with a family member who is waiting to find out what stage cancer they have.
If you are concerned, demand the tests and if you are turned down, go to someone else and do not stop until you get what you want. Life is precious enough without having to wonder what your risk level is.
Best of luck and I hope you never have to worry about developing this awful illness.

CathyMoran

BrianD3 wrote: »

That is pretty bad - I have read a paper by Hermann Brenner which has the following statistics based on over 200,000 cases of prostate cancer in the US

Overall 5 year relative survival: 99%
Overall 10 year relative survival: 98%

5 year relative survival for patients with localised/regional disease: 100.0%
5 year relative survival for those with distant metastatic disease: 31%

Here is the paper. There is some interesting stuff in this, has stats for all the common cancer sites. The stats for cancer of the pancreas, esophagus and lung are dire
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/25/22/3274

Wibbs wrote: »

Interesting stuff indeed. Its amazing how so many assume that it's game over when the C word is mentioned. Yes its obviously a serious condition, but it's far far more curable than many think and way more than even 15 years ago. Even with those three you mention. I know 3 people who have gone through esophageal cancer and 2 are ok years(over 5 anyway) later. The third is ok a year later. Actually I know 4. One of the users here got through it.

It was me - I had the oesophageal cancer diagnosed 3 years ago and now I am in my second trimester. One of my dear friends who had cancer around the same time as me initially had far better odds but found it hard when he was given roughly the same survival statistics as me, he is sadly dead almost 2 years now.

Any cancer is bad and should be checked for regularly, especially if you have a family risk or symptoms. If it is caught early it can normally be treated.