Welcome Roger.

Even a relatively low-grade cancer such as yours may actually be
widespread throughout the organ.  Mine was.  So, as far as I know there
is no type of prostatectomy other than radical.

There is no need to rush your decision.

jimhoney

Welcome to the club that no one asked to join.  Sorry about your having
prostate cancer at such a young age.  But, you have great numbers.  My PSA
was 10 times higher and my Gleason was higher.  You should do very well.

There is no such thing as a partial prostatectomy.  The gland is the size of
a walnut and your biopsy showed that there was cancer in the gland.  They
won't know accurately where it is and to what extent until they cut it out,
along with the seminal vesicles and margins, and slice them up on a lab
table.  As a matter of fact, they won't even know if they got it all until
20 years after the surgery.

Hi everybody
I am 47 years old and from Sweden
I have just been diagnosed with PC
6 biopsies, each 17mm. One showing malignancy in 1 mm. 3+3=6 found in
right base. PSA: 1.4
going to see a uro-specialist in four weeks for further consulting and
examination
In the meanwhile I devour everything about the subject on the internet I
can grasp.
(like you guys surely did and still do)
one subject though I have heard of but not read about (yet) is
prostatectomy that is not radical but... is partial the right word?
surely you know what I mean
Anyone out there who have something on the subject?
Is it maybe something doctors would just refuse to do, referring to the
high risk of leaving some cancer still in the prostate even if the tumor
is small and localized?
curious and most worried man from the cold north where SPRING have
finally arrived :-)
live long and happy
/ Roger
==========
hi roger - welcome to this club you didn't want to join.

here's the plain facts.  the good news.  with the gleason and the psa,
it sounds like it is still gland contained.

given your age, your choice of treatment is surgery.  why?  surgery has
a better chance in the early stages over radiation.  as pca develops,
then both treatments have about the same outcome.

as far as long term effects.  well, that is the roll of the dice and the
hands of the srugeon.  do your homework and research, research,
research.

with surgery, you should be able to have nerve sparing which will keep
your sexual function.  the only thing you will be missing is the
prostate cancer.

i think the partial prostatectomy you might be thinking is called an
open prostatectomy, and it is for prostates that are too big for PVP
treatment.

best of luck,

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc

Hello Roger,
   I was dx'd when I was 49.  I had 3+4 , had a 7.00 on the PSA
They found cancer in my prostate.
I could have gone with radiation...External Beam.  I took a Lupron depot
shot, that shrunk my testicles, and made my body not have testosterone.
I was misearble...Hoping that radiation was not the answer, I went on to see
other Doctors....(I live in a small town)   I went to the "Big City"
I wound up at Stanford Medical Center in Calif.  Dr. Brooks. Dr. James D
Brooks.  looked at my record, and my lab work.....
He said regardless if I had Lupron, I can help you with RP
Anyway, I am 5 plus years from this nightmare....
My PSA is less than 00.1
I do not pee myself....
I can get a medium erection without anything.
Much better with small dose of viagra.
That is my story.
Take the whole thing out!  it is one thing you do not need, and can cause
problems later.
What do I know.  5 year plus survivor of this disease.
John Loomis
Oh, and walk and run......that does help.

 It's like being a little pregnant Roger..... it needs to get completely
out.

I believe that such procedures are meant to deal with urninary blockages
caused by benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) when medication or more
conventional surgery won't work.  I don't believe that it would be
advisable to do anything but a radical prostatectomy to treat prostate
cancer.  Prostate cancer, when it exists, is usually spread throughout
the prostate, 5-7 sites being typical.  There is no way for the surgeon
to know in advance just where the cancer is going to be.  That is
determined by the pathologist after the prostate has been removed.

Hi Roger, At 47 and your PSA at 1.4 What made you get a biopsy in the first
place.Any symptoms or suspicious DRE.The reason I ask is because I'm 40 and
about to have a biopsy.I have a abnormal DRE and a PSA of 0.6 and
symptoms......Dan

There was a posting with the title "Prostate Cancer 'Lumpectomy'
Tested" on April 1.  It was about cryoablation rather than surgery,
but you might look at that.

I'm not a doctor and my opinion is not that of an expert but,
as with many others in the group, I would be very leery of
any partial treatment.

As Leonard and others have pointed out, tumor cells usually
appear in multiple places in the prostate.  I don't know how a
doctor could be sure of getting rid of all of them without
removing (or radiating) the whole prostate.

It seems that the biggest danger we all face is not that our
doctors will treat too large an area of our bodies, but that they
won't treat enough.  Many men with radical prostatectomies
or radiation have not been cured - possibly because the
cancer had already spread outside the treatment area, or
possibly because the surgeon or radiation oncologist
failed to treat all of the cancer tissue.

You can live very well without a prostate.  Many men here
can testify that they have full control over their bladders and
their sex lives after radical prostatectomy.  If you have a good,
experienced surgeon, your chances for success in these
areas are good.  And even if you do have post operative
problems, there are ways to adapt to them.  But it's hard
to adapt to being dead.

I would worry about a partial prostatectomy that 1) it would not
cure me and 2) I would then need a second operation or
treatment - with less chance of success (because the
cancer had continued to develop) and greater chance of
side effects (because it would now be an unusual operation
on already damaged tissue.)

  Alan