Does use of PDE5 inhibitors post-treatment affect risk for biochemical recurrence? | THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK

19 07 2015

Most recommend a daily Cialis after RALP for post op recovery of erectile dysfunction.  Here’s the debate….

Does use of PDE5 inhibitors post-treatment affect risk for biochemical recurrence? | THE “NEW” PROSTATE CANCER INFOLINK.


Remember, it’s just one study.


JAMA | Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Proton Therapy, or Conformal Radiation Therapy and Morbidity and Disease Control in Localized Prostate Cancer

5 03 2015

I’ve been getting a lot of questions about Proton Beam Rx for Prostate Cancer.  Here’s a nice summary.  Bottom line:  More Gastrointestinal side effects, and 3x the cost!


JAMA | Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy, Proton Therapy, or Conformal Radiation Therapy and Morbidity and Disease Control in Localized Prostate Cancer.

Congrats on a successful #zeroprostatecancer Run!

27 09 2014

Thanks to our whole crew who made our first annual Zero Prostate Cancer Run/Walk a huge success!

Check out:

for race results and other cool stuff.  We raised over $65,000 to help fight Prostate Cancer!!!!  Big thanks to Heather Eissler, our race coordinator for all of her hard work.  We also can’t say enough about our corporate and local sponsors!

DSC0006 DSC0022 DSC0023

Why Prostate Cancer Screening Is So Tricky : Shots – Health News : NPR

26 02 2013

Why Prostate Cancer Screening Is So Tricky : Shots – Health News : NPR.

Precancerous Lesions of the Prostate

7 01 2013

Precancerous Lesions of the Prostate.

Not all prostate biopsies are negative.  Not all are positive.  Some are “in between.”  High Grade PIN is a lesion noted in about 15% of biopsies that, from a cellular architecture, is benign.  It does, however, require close follow up, and in more involved cases, repeat biopsy.  The link above provides a comprehensive overview.

Prostate Cancer – Do Your Homework!

7 12 2012

Being newly diagnosed with prostate cancer can be overwhelming.   Immediate thoughts of our own mortality can overcome us.  The fact is that 1 in 6 men in their lifetime will get this news, and there are many very successful treatments.  I encourage all my patients to educate themselves with the many resources  available  and so that together, we may make an educated treatment decision.  There are a lot of myths and stigmata out there surrounding different treatment options.  Below is a list of several reputable websites which I routinely refer my patients to so they may study their condition.

NCCN Guidelines:

The NCCN Guidelines are the most comprehensive and most frequently updated clinical practice guidelines available in any area of medicine. These guidelines provide information that many doctors follow to make sure their decisions for people with cancer are well informed. The NCCN Guidelines are developed by 43 different NCCN Guidelines Panels composed of nearly 900 world-leading experts from each of the NCCN Member Institutions. Cancer is treated by teams of doctors and other health professionals who work together to diagnose and treat cancer. NCCN Guidelines Panels are multidisciplinary, which means they include experts in different fields reflecting the way cancer is treated. These fields include medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, radiology, nursing, and social work. Recommendations in the NCCN Guidelines are based on evaluation of evidence from clinical trials that are published in the medical literature. Most of the panel members who develop the NCCN Guidelines perform both clinical research and treat people with cancer. 1

US National Library of Medicine

The U.S. National Library of medicine (NLM) is the world’s largest medical library. It has millions of books and journals about all aspects of medicine and health care on its shelves. Its electronic services deliver trillions of bytes of data to millions of users every day.  This is a plain english guide to understanding the disease process and treatment options.

Urology Care Foundation

This is the American Urological Association’s official patient resource website.


Intuitive Surgical

Makers of the da Vinci Robotic Surgical system.  This is the standard of care for surgical removal of the prostate.  We have extensive experience with this technology, and firmly believe in it’s merits.



Know Your Stats || Home

24 09 2012

September is Prostate Cancer Awareness month.  Check out this link:

Know Your Stats || Home.

Ten-Year Cost of Active Surveillance Akin to Prostatectomy

25 07 2012

Ten-Year Cost of Active Surveillance Akin to Prostatectomy.

USPSTF makes a reckless recommendation

25 05 2012

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on Monday issued a grade “D” rating for PSA screening for prostate cancer.  Below is a synopsis issued by LUGPA (Large Urology Group Practice Association), of which I am a member.  

recommendation regarding prostate cancer screening is wrong in fact and dangerous if implemented:  an objective analysis.

Despite advances in early detection and treatment, prostate cancer remains a significant public health hazard.  Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin tumor in men, and remains the second leading cause of cancer death in American males.  The USPSTF assignation of a “D” rating to PSA based screening for prostate cancer, which discourages men from undergoing screening for this potentially fatal illness, is ill-advised and irresponsible for a number of reasons:

  1. The USPSTF final recommendation is fundamentally incorrect based on the scientific evidence, relying on flawed studies while refusing to properly acknowledge strong data that supports the benefits of PSA screening for prostate cancer.
    1. The USPSTF relied on the deeply flawed Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial (PLCO).  This study (N Engl J Med 2009; 360:1310-1319) suffered from severe “contamination” of the data; in the first six years of the study at least 52% of men in the control arm had PSA testing.  This completely invalidates the results of the study.
    2. The largest study ever performed on screening for prostate cancer, the European Randomized Study for the Screening of Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) recently released its updated findings (N Engl J Med 2012; 366:981-990).  This demonstrated a 21% survival advantage to PSA screening for all patients, and furthermore, for those with the longest follow-up (over 10 years) this increased to 38%.  The screening efficiency of PSA testing in this study is similar to that reported for breast or colo-rectal cancer.
  2. The USPSTF does not include any physicians with direct clinical experience in the management of prostate cancer, and failed to disclose the views of experts in the field when finalizing their recommendation.
    1. The USPSTF had the opportunity to review comments from the public.  During the comment period urologists, oncologists, patient advocacy groups and Congressional leaders were united in their opposition to the proposed recommendation released in October.  The USPSTF inexplicably disregarded these concerns when finalizing their recommendations.
  3. The USPSTF bases their objections not on the risks of screening, which are negligible, but the risks of diagnosis and treatment of cancer.  This is a scientific bait and switch of the worst order.
    1. Screening is not diagnosis, nor is it treatment; it is a method to provide patients and their doctors with information that is then used to determine the appropriateness of further evaluation and/or treatment. 
    2. The task force’s recommendation fundamentally states that patients cannot be trusted to make informed decisions on their own. Every man has a right to make his own decision about screening after reviewing the potential risks and benefits with his own doctor. We cannot allow an unaccountable government entity to deny patients access to tests that saves the lives of thousands of Americans every year.  This issue is more than a medical issue; it is a fundamental issue of human rights.




  1. Implementation of these recommendations will result in a public health catastrophe in 5-10 years.
    1. From 1972-1991, the death rate from prostate cancer increased 27%, from 30.97 deaths/100,000 men to 39.31 deaths/100,000 men. From 1991-2009 the death rate decreased to 21.99 deaths/100,000 men (44%).  As the incidence of prostate cancer has been relatively stable during this interval, the decrease can only be attributed to treatment given to patients diagnosed thanks to increased use of PSA testing after its commercial introduction in 1986; we are not detecting more cancer, we are detecting cancer earlier and saving lives.[i]


  1. The 10 year survival from prostate cancer in the pre-PSA era increased only slightly, from 53.5% in the interval 1975-79 to 58.1% from 1980-84.  During the period PSA testing was introduced, 1984-89, the 10 year survival from prostate cancer improved to 69.9%.  Since that time, the 10 year survival from prostate cancer has increased every year for which we have data; by 1999 it was an astounding 98.6%.  If we fail to diagnose prostate cancer early, thousands of men who have potentially curable disease will needlessly suffer and die.[ii]

The final recommendation by the USPSTF is a one size fits all philosophy that even ignores populations universally acknowledged to be at highest risk for this disease:  African-American men and those with a family history of prostate cancer. This same task force suggested mammograms were unnecessary for women ages 40-49 and has also recommended against teaching women breast self exams, both of which were retracted after massive public outcry. The USPSTF’s recommendation risks undoing 20 years of progress in patient education; all concerned citizens are encouraged to contact their representatives to demand they overturn this inaccurate and dangerous recommendation so that no man is denied access to this potentially life-saving testing.