 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2005Bone Scan, giving blood.
Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. I saw my uro today and surgery seemed to be the best choice for me. (age 56 T1c 3+4 God, how I wish that we ALL didn't know about this stuff) Not just from his advice (He went through all of the options) but from all the reading that I've done here and on websites over the past month while waiting for and fearing the biopsy. He said to consider the options for a week or 2 and then decide. Then surgey a few weeks after. (about a month from now) They want a bone scan which they said would tell them whether the cancer was confined to the prostate gland. Said that a negative would be a 97% chance that it was. He felt that this would be the case. He saw and felt nothing during biopsy. Lymph sections during surgery would be a double check. Then it was suggested to sign up to donate 2 units of my blood if needed during surgery due to possible blood loss and avoidance of complications though rare. Supposedly common. Does this sound OK? Thanks again, Ron B It is exactly the regimen I went through. Very common. Some might say you don't need a bone scan. Others might say you don't need to donate blood. Both are precautionary and neither bothered me in the least.  SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 Seminal Vesicle involvement, Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 Lupron (4 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50) non Illegitimi carborundum > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B >Subject: Re: Bone Scan, giving blood. >From: "Steve Kramer" skramer@cinci.rr.com >Date: 2/8/2005 4:49 PM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <0mbOd.22787$i42.18175@fe1.columbus.rr.com> Hot spots on the bone scan would indicate you already have mets, and some surgeons don't want to remove the prostate then. My take is to take it out, anyway. >It is exactly the regimen I went through. Very common. Some might say you >don't need a bone scan. Others might say you don't need to donate blood. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >> >> Ron B > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B I did not receive a bone scan and my doc did not need me to give blood. I guess it depends on the surgeon. Do as they recommend. You'll be in good hands. Good luck Dale SignatureEmail: dalej2@mac.com The decision factor is the cancer's stage, more than the doc. It's advised with Gleason 8, if I recall properly, less so with 6, don't recall about 7. I.P. "dale.j. " <nos.pamz@nospam.com> wrote > > I did not receive a bone scan and my doc did not need me to give blood. > I guess it depends on the surgeon. Do as they recommend. You'll be in > good hands. > Email: dalej2@mac.com I discussed autologous (self) blood donation before my surgery. Both my colon and prostate surgeons said the risk is in clerical error, not "bad blood" , and donating one's own blood does nothing to reduce that error. Ergo, autologous donation is just for pacification, not safety. In addition, it introduces the problem of red blood cell regeneration; our bone marrow has a heck of a time replacing them between donation and use, and surgery w/o a good red blood cell population adds risk. Thus the UW/VA position, at the very least, concludes that autologous blood donation actually ADDS a dab of overall risk. I was ready to do it, but skipped it upon their recommendation. (I lost almost no blood in the combined surgery.) I.P. "Ron B" <Gimel@webtv.net> wrote > > Then it was suggested to sign up to donate 2 units of my blood if needed > during surgery due to possible blood loss and avoidance of complications [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does this sound OK? Sounds like a very common plan of action to me, Ron! Yes, it would be nice if none of knew anything about all this at all.... or had to deal with it. But such is life. The good thing is, life goes on!! Keep your eyes on the good things... and enjoy the ride. Take care! MikeH :) > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B best wishes for a speedy and uncomplicated recovery course. SignatureLori Devoted wife of Curtis mets to bone at age 40 PSA on diagnosis 675 (12/31/2003) lowest PSA 14 currently ~47 Failed HT in 9 mo on Radiation for pain now (done) Chemo to start in 4-6 wks (probably March) possible clinical trial of MEDI-522 (Qwk) along with Taxotere and Decadron (Q3wks) http://community.webshots.com/user/lorismiller > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. ymph sections during surgery would be a double check. > Then it was suggested to sign up to donate 2 units of my blood if needed > during surgery due to possible blood loss and avoidance of complications [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Does this sound OK? Dr Catalona wanted me to have the bone scan and donate 1 unit of blood before the surgery on the off chance that something happened and I needed it. Had a needle in me pre-op that looked like a culvert so they could pump all manner of drugs, etc. in while I was on the table. Turned out I didn't lose much during the surgery so they gave me my unit back the day before I went home. I guess their motto was "well, it' yours anyway. Waste not, want not. Got any room in there?" Apparently, I did<g> >> Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > back the day before I went home. I guess their motto was > "well, it' yours anyway. Waste not, want not. Got any room in there?" They don't generally test autologous blood donations, so they can't use it for other patients. > Apparently, I did<g> on 2/9/2005 9:00 AM Leonard Evens said the following: >> Turned out I didn't lose much during the surgery so they gave me my >> unit back the day before I went home. I guess their motto was >> "well, it' yours anyway. Waste not, want not. Got any room in there?" > > They don't generally test autologous blood donations, so they can't use > it for other patients. Good point. Then again, if I set it aside for my surgery, even if they do test it, what are the legal and ethical ramifications of passing it along to someone else absent a specific intent on my part that it be so used? Would have been happy to pass it along but AFAIK there was nothing signed to allow it. > on 2/9/2005 9:00 AM Leonard Evens said the following: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would have been happy to pass it along but AFAIK there was nothing > signed to allow it. I asked about that possibility when the blood was drawn, and they told me it couldn't be used for someone else in any event because they weren't going to bother testing it. >> on 2/9/2005 9:00 AM Leonard Evens said the following: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > couldn't be used for someone else in any event because they weren't going to > bother testing it. The Red Cross policy is to not accept donations until you are "cancer free" for five years. I presume that might be the reason why the hospital will not administer your blood to someone else. They can screw up. The last time I donated, I told them that I had received my positive PCA biopsy report two days earlier. I expected they might refuse or might take my blood for research or for special treatment. They said no problem and accepted my donation as standard. Later I learned about the 5-year prohibition. Al >>>on 2/9/2005 9:00 AM Leonard Evens said the following: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > for five years. I presume that might be the reason why the hospital will not > administer your blood to someone else. You are probably right. but it has always seemed to me that this policy is a bit foolish. I may be missing something, but as best I can tell, there is really no evidence that prostate cancer can be spread through blood donations, at least in normal people. There is at least one isolated report of prostate cancer being spread through organ donation, but the patient was on powerful immunosuppressive drugs. Also, given that one man in six will be diagnosed some time in life with prostate cancer, there must be lots of blood donors out there with undiagnosed prostate cancers. But I suppose it is better to be safe than sorry. > They can screw up. The last time I donated, I told them that I had received > my positive PCA biopsy report two days earlier. I expected they might refuse [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Al >>I asked about that possibility when the blood was drawn, and they told me it >>couldn't be used for someone else in any event because they weren't going to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > problem and accepted my donation as standard. Later I learned about the > 5-year prohibition. I totally forgot about that in spite of having checked on it a year or two after my RRP. Any idea on when they start the clock ticking down? i.e., do they consider the RRP a cure if you have no detectable PSA or do they look to a five year post op period with non-recurrence at which time they mark you "cured" and start counting? The issue of the transmission of PCa or any cancer via blood is an interesting one because it implicates fundamentals of the disease. Unlike viruses or bacterial infections, cancer is composed of our own cells gone amok due to DNA mutations. The incidious nature of it is because one's immune system is not prone to killing its own cells in large numbers. However, those cells introduced into another person are foreign, perceived as such, and attacked viciously. So, it would seem that cancer is not transmittable from one person to another person as long as the recipient has an operating immune system. On the other hand, would you knowingly want to receive blood of a person w/, say. colon cancer? Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis I guess one could say it's cured when we die of something else with a zero PSA. ;-) Or, taking your question more seriously, I'd say a 16-year relapse-free period, considering how many cases seem to get real serious at the 15-year point. But I'll NEVER stop watching my PSA until I'm dying of something else. I.P. > Any idea on when they start the clock ticking down? > i.e., do they consider the RRP a cure if you have no detectable PSA or > do they look to a five year post op period with non-recurrence at which > time they mark you "cured" and start counting? > I guess one could say it's cured when we die of something else with a zero > PSA. ;-) LOL! > Or, taking your question more seriously, I'd say a 16-year relapse-free > period, considering how many cases seem to get real serious at the 15-year > point. But I'll NEVER stop watching my PSA until I'm dying of something > else. I hear you, but it sure gets easier waiting for the test results as time goes by, doesn't it? Speaking of which... Since the PSA was undetectable, my uro switched me from PSA tests every 90 days at two years post op to a six month cycle. I haven't even brought it up with him but I'm wondering if I'll switch to annuals once I hit the five year mark next month. What's the group's experience in that regard? Bob At Johns Hopkins it's annual after the initial 90-day undetectable. jimhoney > I hear you, but it sure gets easier waiting for the test results as time > goes by, doesn't it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bob I wonder whether hypersensitive PSA tests will change that. My oncologist said yesterday that a clear PSA data trend, even if in the second decimal place, may well be credible. For example, they may believe a PSA DT calculated from a clear, distinct line in very low numbers such as .01, .02, .04, etc. This could give doctors useful decision data much earlier than waiting for big honkin' integers, allowing appropriate action much sooner. They're going to keep checking my .006 quarterly, and the heck with Walsh's reticence to use hypersensitive PSAs or to start adjuvant HT before clinical failure. Another viewpoint. I.P. > At Johns Hopkins it's annual after the initial 90-day undetectable. My uro, had I lasted 5 years, was going to do quarterly for 2 years, semi for 2 years and annual for the rest of my life. You're right about good reports getting easier to wait for. My last three have been a breeze. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0 Seminal Vesicle involvement, Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron (1 mo) 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .07 .05 .06 .05 Lupron (4 mo) 8/03 (48), 12/03, 4/04 (49), 09/04 (50), 01/05 non Illegitimi carborundum > > I guess one could say it's cured when we die of something else with a zero > > PSA. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Bob The blood is kept frozen. They defrost it for surgery. If it is not used it cannot be refrozen it must be disposed of. Therefore, anytime they defrost blood (yours or another donation) for surgery and it is not used they dump it. Certain surgical procedures are known for sufficient blood loss that it might need to be replaced so they will automatically pull (defrost) so many units of blood. The amount of blood that is dumped (never used) is unreal. This is why there has been a push for artificial blood so we stop wasting human blood. Also the safety level and convenience of using artificial blood that does not need refrigeration, type matching, etc. especially in the field or ER were blood can mean the difference between life or death. Bev > on 2/9/2005 9:00 AM Leonard Evens said the following: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Would have been happy to pass it along but AFAIK there was nothing > signed to allow it. My case was T2c and I was not offered a bone scan at Johns Hopkins. Sounds like you are getting deluxe service. I tried to donate two units of blood but only managed one due to HBP or something the second try. I took two units during the standard RRP, but the surgeon was unconcerned. jimhoney standard RRP age 52, cured, no significant aftereffects > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He said to consider the options for a week or 2 and then decide. Then > surgey a few weeks after. (about a month from now) What you describe seems pretty much the standard drill. It is certainly similar to what was done in my case, which was similar to yours. > They want a bone scan which they said would tell them whether the cancer > was confined to the prostate gland. > > Said that a negative would be a 97% chance that it was. He felt that > this would be the case. He saw and felt nothing during biopsy. Some doctors just skip the bone scan because the likelihood of finding anything is low. Mine skipped it. It is really a matter of individual choice on the part of the surgeon. Don't worry about it. They are highly unlikely to find anything. Sometimes they will find abnormalities, but they don't mean cancer has spread to the bone. Lots of other things will show up on a bone scan. I'm sure my spine, for example, would look awful since I have four herniated discs and spinal stenosis. > Lymph sections during surgery would be a double check. Sometimes, the surgeon will pause and wait for the pathologist to check the removed lymph nodes and sometimes the surgeon will just proceed with the surgery. In your case, pausing is more likely since you have a Gleason 7 tumor. My greatest fear was that I would wake up without a catheter in place because they found cancer in the lymph nodes and aborted the surgery. That turned out to be quite foolish since first of all the likelihood of that happening was very low and secondly when I woke up I was too woozy to care and I doubt if I could have found the catheter anyway. The resident was right there anyway and told me the surgery was successful and that they had spared the nerves. > Then it was suggested to sign up to donate 2 units of my blood if needed > during surgery due to possible blood loss and avoidance of complications > though rare. This is also somewhat variable. Good surgeons usually don't need much blood and some feel they can trust the hospital blood supply. But sometimes things can get a bit complicated and the blood is needed. My surgeon had me "donate" the two units, and it turned out he needed to use most of it because my prostate was smaller than usual and he had to work harder to get it out. But that didn't prevent him from doing a great job. > Supposedly common. > > Does this sound OK? > > Thanks again, Look for Joe Shaw's list of things to have ready when you come home from the hospital. > Ron B Sounds like SOP all the way. You did not give your PSA but, given T1 I suspect it is not high. If that is the case, it is highly unlikely the bone scan will show anything for 2 reasons: 1. it is highly unlikely you have mets; and 2, at low PSA levels early in the course of the disease, it is highly unlikely mets would show up even if they are indeed there. Thus, IMHO I think the bone scan is more defensive medicine than anything. Even though I had pre-op PSA of 33 and have a recurrence, the 2 bone scans, MRI, and ProstaScint I had has did not show a thing other than some arthritic damage and old (and unknown fractures). Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis My urologist gave me a CT after the bone scan, both advised with my numbers, looking for lymph node mets. The CT discovered a mass in my colon that threatened me far sooner than any Gleason 8 PC. IOW, my PC and an aggressive urologist probably saved, or at least prolonged, my life. Sometimes ya win one, even if in strange ways! I.P. My Doc gave me the same advice if I have it removed. I think I'm going to have the seeding though. My Doc told me I didn't need a bone scan because my PSA was low (6 something), Does this sound right? > Hi and thanks to all for your help and support. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Ron B It varies from doctor to doctor but the Gleason score, your age and probably a half dozen other things all factor into it. If the doctor thinks you are a candidate for seeds then he thinks that the odds of it having spread are probably null. Bev > My Doc gave me the same advice if I have it removed. I think I'm going to > have the seeding though. My Doc told me I didn't need a bone scan because [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > > > Ron B |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.