Posted 9/15/2024 12:49 AM (GMT -5)
I am not a doctor, but I am a retired lawyer, so I’m familiar with CYA. Without randomized controlled testing, there is no way to know the answer about trt for PCa patients, but when I was diagnosed, no one suggested I go on ADT, but I was low risk G-6. Still, if testosterone is like gas on fire, why wouldn’t I have been put on ADT?
It amazes me how long “old beliefs” persist in medicine. I am allergic to shellfish, with my reaction being anaphylaxis. The old belief was it was iodine which caused the reaction. Everyone’s body produces iodine, so if that were true, people like me would be having daily reactions, which we don’t. The reaction is actually due to a certain protein contained in shellfish. Also, shellfish are bottom dwellers and scavengers, so carry 100’s of thousands of parasites that could cause an allergic reaction, but not iodine.
I’ve been to a number of top hospitals that have either refused to give me iodine containing contrast for CT scans or wanted me to take steroids and some other drugs first. They usually relent after I tell them it’s not an iodine reaction and that I’ve had many iodine contrast studies done without issue.
Why do these old beliefs persist? If I, a layperson, know this, why don’t the techs at some of the top hospitals in the country know this? It’s either that or legal has said it’s not worth the risk of litigation, since as we say in my old profession, anyone can sue anyone.
In the case of trt, I’d want to see a study that shows it doesn’t promote recurrence. If testosterone didn’t promote recurrence, I’d think that ADT would be curative, but it’s not. That said, if lack of testosterone made my life that miserable, I’d probably take the risk. Quality of life is important. Just my 2 cents.