Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Brother-in-law recently diagnosed with PC

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Debbie Trujillo - 28 Apr 2005 15:01 GMT
Some of you may recall that my husband John had the RP in July 2003.  His
sister's husband was recently diagnosed.  They are members of Kaiser
Permanente, an HMO.  They removed 5 cores from Richard and claim his cancer
has not spread very far.  It seems strange to me that they would remove only
5 cores.  John's doctor removed 12 from him.

I don't know what Richard's Gleason score is.  I would guess his age to be
mid- to late-60s.  I had thought of trying to encourage my sister-in-law to
join this NG.  It certainly saved my sanity when John and I were going
through his surgery.

Thanks for listening.

Signature

Debbie Trujillo

Please visit my website at http://mysite.verizon.net/res21yh8/index.html


jhhtexas@ieee.org - 28 Apr 2005 18:22 GMT
The reason for a larger number of cores is that it provides better
sampling to catch Pca. If 5 cores caught it, then that number sufficed.
If an RP is the treatment option, the pathology of the entire prostate
will provide the definitive information afterwards.
David S. - 28 Apr 2005 19:10 GMT
I am sorry to hear that your brother-in-law has to go through this.  Kaiser
is a big well established outfit, so he should get good care there.  Be sure
your sister-in-law is vigilant though.  It never hurts to have a well
informed advocate.

On the biopsy, the doctor made it a point to tell me that he was going to
take 10 samples, but the path report only mentioned 6.  I never found out
what happened to the other 4.  In any case, they found what they were
looking for, so I do not think it matters.  Hopefully this has been caught
soon enough to result in a cure.

Good luck to you and your in-laws.

> Some of you may recall that my husband John had the RP in July 2003.  His
> sister's husband was recently diagnosed.  They are members of Kaiser
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thanks for listening.
Stephen Jordan - 28 Apr 2005 20:15 GMT
> Some of you may recall that my husband John had the RP in July 2003.  His
> sister's husband was recently diagnosed.  They are members of Kaiser
> Permanente, an HMO.  They removed 5 cores from Richard and claim his cancer
> has not spread very far.  It seems strange to me that they would remove only
> 5 cores.  John's doctor removed 12 from him.

Five cores is insufficien, although jhhtexas seems to feel five was
enough because carcinoma was detected. The Romans had a way of
describing this logical fallacy: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," meaning
"after this, therefore because of this." Or maybe the end justifies the
means.

The medic had no idea when performing the procedure whether (s)he was
sampling the correct area or not. Once upon a time, the sextant
(six-core) biopsy was standard -- until it was discovered that six is
not enough, too many tumors were missed. That's when 12 cores became
the standard. No one can doubt that 12 is more likely to detect tumors
than five. Detecting the tumor with only five cores was pure luck, as
it is with 12. But with 12, the odds are better.

> I don't know what Richard's Gleason score is.  I would guess his age to be
> mid- to late-60s.  I had thought of trying to encourage my sister-in-law to
> join this NG.  It certainly saved my sanity when John and I were going
> through his surgery.

I recommend that Debbie's BIL also be encouraged to check out the
Prostate Cancer Research Institute at  
http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html

And to study the thorough, authoritative and objective _A Primer on
Prostate Cancer_, subtitled "The Empowered Patient's Guide," by Stephen
B. Strum, a medical oncologist who specializes in prostate cancer, and
Donna Pogliano, a PCa activist whose husband is a survivor.

He should study, learn, take charge.

Regards,

Steve J
__
"Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small,
large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good
sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming
might of the enemy.''
--Sir Winston L. S. Churchill
Steve Kramer - 29 Apr 2005 02:14 GMT
Maybe, just maybe, they reported to him that 5 cores showed cancer.  He may
have had 20 needles.

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05
non Illegitimi carborundum

> Some of you may recall that my husband John had the RP in July 2003.  His
> sister's husband was recently diagnosed.  They are members of Kaiser
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thanks for listening.
Beverley - 29 Apr 2005 02:54 GMT
I agree with Steve. I think what they found were five cores with cancer. The
others are just sort of tossed away. It's there or it's not.  Very simple.
Failure to explain fully seems to be a common problem.
Bev

> Maybe, just maybe, they reported to him that 5 cores showed cancer.  He may
> have had 20 needles.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> >
> > Thanks for listening.

Rate this thread:






 
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.