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 / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Biopsy Results in today.....

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
USC Gamecock - 22 Jun 2005 16:57 GMT
Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7

Consulted with my doc this a.m. -- I have cancer in the left side of
the prostate, Gleason Score of 6 (3+3).  Dianon Labs in CT and John
Hopkins have reviewed the slides.

I'm not sure what all that means so any advice is appreciated.  My doc
and I discussed taking a couple of month (longer if needed) to study
all options before making a decision.

Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!
James A Honeychuck - 22 Jun 2005 17:10 GMT
Well, you're definitely headed for a cure.

I don't want to appear to be telling you what to do, but I think most
men in your situation would think that the magic words are
"laparascopic, nerve-sparing, radical prostatectomy."

jimhoney
standard RRP age 52, cured, no significant aftereffects

> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!
Bob Anthony - 22 Jun 2005 18:04 GMT
> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!

This is incredible! A .7 PSA, at age 37, and positive for cancer. Man,
who would have thunk it?? I'm beginning to think that there are more
people with PCa than most of the medical community really knows about.
I went for the robotic procedure last December. I was continent from day
one, although erections not back yet. I did have both nerves spared. (I
was diagnosed at 52 and in very good physical condition). I was a T1c,
3+3 clinically with a PSA of 7.6. Went to a 4+3 and T2c after surgery.
Shows you that you never know for sure until they get the thing out on
the table! Seems to me getting it out would be the best approach for
someone at your age. You'll probably never have to worry about it ever
again.
Best of luck to you with whatever treatment you choose to do.
B.A.
Stephen Jordan - 22 Jun 2005 19:53 GMT
On June 22, USC Gamecock wrote the bad news:

(snip)

> Consulted with my doc this a.m. -- I have cancer in the left side of
>  the prostate, Gleason Score of 6 (3+3).  Dianon Labs in CT and John
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> doc and I discussed taking a couple of month (longer if needed) to
> study all options before making a decision.

Very sorry to learn this, but I reckon it's been caught early enough
that, as the medic recommends, some study time would be helpful.

What is the clinical stage? It's noted as something like T(xxx); T2b, for
example.

Again, I strongly recommend the website of the Prostate Cancer Research
Institute at
http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html
There is a lot of study to do, and this site is objective and authoritative.

Also: read _A Primer on Prostate Cancer_ by Stephen B. Strum, MD, and
Donna Pogliano. It doesn't get any better than this, and it's not a tract
advocating any particular form of tx. The information I found in that
book quite literally helped me to save my life when my medic proved,
to put it politely, incapable.

Lastly, and very important, now is the time to start a prostate cancer
file/digest, which should include a copy of every test and notes on every
event.

USC... is beginning a fight that might well go on for years, there is no way
to be sure. PCa is a merciless enemy; either you kill it or it will kill
you. No
middle ground; no compromise.

As in any war, intelligence on the dispositions of the enemy is vital. There
is a number of tests that can and should be performed to stage this
particular tumor according to its peculiar biology. They are explained
on the PCRI site and in the book.

Please: do not fail to prepare. I did fail to do so because I had no support
structure, and I've paid an unreasonable price for it.

Regards,

Steve J

"No man is an Island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the
Continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a
manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes
me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know
for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee."
-- John Donne

PS: The above quote, if he did as planned, was used by Dr. Stephen Strum in
his presentation at the just-concluded PCa Conference in Washington.

How many of this bunch attended?
Steve Kramer - 22 Jun 2005 21:32 GMT
Well, that's the bad news.  No way getting around it.  You're dealt an awful
hand.  At 46, some felt sorry for me getting it so young.  Your getting it
just aint fair.  Yeah, I know... who said life was fair?

Okay.  For your initiation...  you need to research.  That's the most
important thing at this point.  And, you have time to do that.  Not that
you'll have much of a decision.  Your doc will almost certainly advise you
to have surgery.  But, you're going to want to go through the paces so that
you know why you're having surgery.

You may want to get a 2nd opinion on your Gleason, but that's not going to
change your treatment option, probably.

You will also want to research surgeons.  At 37, you'll want someone who is
really good at nerve sparing.

Finally, fight with all you got the depression that will try to invade your
life.

The good news is:

Your Gleason is 6.  Five would have been better, but seven is much worse.
Out of the 500 or so that have visited this site in my time here, only five
had a Gleason 5.  None had a 1, 2, 3 or 4.

Your PSA is 0.7.  There just isn't much of a chance of being diagnosed with
a lower PSA.  Out of those same 500, I only know of three that had a lower
PSA.

Sorry for your diagnosis.

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

> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!
David S. - 23 Jun 2005 19:45 GMT
You put me to shame in the record keeping department.  Is this all in your
head, or do you keep a database?

> Out of the 500 or so that have visited this site in my time here, only five
> had a Gleason 5.  None had a 1, 2, 3 or 4.
>
> Your PSA is 0.7.  There just isn't much of a chance of being diagnosed with
> a lower PSA.  Out of those same 500, I only know of three that had a lower
> PSA.
Steve Kramer - 24 Jun 2005 20:02 GMT
You wouldn't know it from the record these past few weeks on this NG, but I
hate to be wrong.  I used to say, if I don't know, I keep my mouth shut.
So, rather than never type a message here, I started early on keeping track
of the people I've 'spoken' to so that when we discuss their concerns, I can
refer at least to when they had their cancer, the the original statistics
were and where they are now.  I do it in a spreadsheet and I sort by various
columns when an issue like this comes up.

Now, as far as those members whose wives have tripped over psychotic dogs
'saved' from the SPCA and broken their legs?  That stuff is in my head.

And, to be honest, I'm sure all of us here know that Gleason 5 is damned
rare and great news and that to be diagnosed at 0.7 is almost miraculous and
that no one has been seen here at the age of 37.

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

> You put me to shame in the record keeping department.  Is this all in your
> head, or do you keep a database?
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> > a lower PSA.  Out of those same 500, I only know of three that had a lower
> > PSA.
Leonard Evens - 22 Jun 2005 21:40 GMT
> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and I discussed taking a couple of month (longer if needed) to study
> all options before making a decision.

The good news is that if you have your prostate surgically removed by a
skilled surgeon,  your chances of ever having a recurrence are pretty
low, as are the chances of your having any significant side effects such
as incontinence or impotence.

The bad news is that if you don't do anything,  your cancer may never
bother you, so surgery would be taking a risk, however, small, with no
real benefit.

Unfortunately, there is no way to tell at present whether your cancer is
innocuous or a serious threat.  Many physicians question whether or not
a man your age should even be tested for prostate cancer.

Good luck.

> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!
Paul - 23 Jun 2005 04:32 GMT
People tend to recommend whatever they've had good results with, so I
agree with others that you should do your own research. I've had the
seeds for two weeks with a Gleason of 6, with very few problems and
think they're great. All the major treatments have similar track
records for final results: life expectancy after treatment; so other
factors become important. Talk to a couple of physicians. Some surgeons
automatically recommend surgery--others are more even-handed.
Glassman - 23 Jun 2005 06:27 GMT
> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!

 WOW you have a decision to make alright. My 2cents say RP at your age and
you're most likely cured. Have you finished having kids yet? If not do it
now, or get your little guys donated and frozen for a later date. Just in
case you don't know this, whether or not you get surgery or seeds, the goal
is to completely eliminate your prostate forever. This means no more
ejaculation. Yes you still can have great sex and orgasms, but it'll be dry.

Signature

JK Sinrod
Sinrod Stained Glass Studios
www.sinrodstudios.com
Coney Island Memories
www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories

David S. - 23 Jun 2005 19:51 GMT
Interesting question that I have not seen discussed here (maybe I missed it
though).  After RP is it possible, with modern techniques, to obtain sperm
from the male and do artificial fertilization so a couple can have a child?
Anybody know?

Also, after the RP, no ejaculate, but is the connection between the
testicles and the urethra still present so that sperm could find their way
out, or is that connection severed so it is "impossible" for a man to make a
woman pregnant?  I suspect the latter, but wonder if anyone has ever asked a
doctor about that?

Thank you.

> <snip>
>     Have you finished having kids yet? If not do it
> now, or get your little guys donated and frozen for a later date. Just in
> case you don't know this, whether or not you get surgery or seeds, the goal
> is to completely eliminate your prostate forever. This means no more
> ejaculation. Yes you still can have great sex and orgasms, but it'll be dry.
Leonard Evens - 23 Jun 2005 19:56 GMT
> Interesting question that I have not seen discussed here (maybe I missed it
> though).  After RP is it possible, with modern techniques, to obtain sperm
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Thank you.

I don't know the answer to your first question.  As to the second, I
believe the tubes leading from the testicles are tied off.  In any case,
they would have to be reconnected to the urethra for there to be any
possibility of the sperm getting out, and they aren't.   So after RP,
you are sterile.   I believe you are usually also sterile after
radiation treatment, but I'm not sure.

>><snip>
>>    Have you finished having kids yet? If not do it
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> dry.
judamd@aol.com - 24 Jun 2005 00:07 GMT
David S.

 The tubes from the testicles are cut as in a vasectomy.  Also, I
think the sperm was first deposited in the prostate and sent along with
the ejaculate into the urethra.  I don't think the sperm went directly
to the urethra.  Of course with no prostate, there is no ejaculate, no
sperm, nada.  So, getting someone pregnant that way is out of the
question.  The testicles however still produce sperm which as it ages
is gradually reabsorbed into the body so it is possible in principle to
extract healthy sperm directly from the testicles, artificially
fertilize an egg, and then implant the egg into the woman of your
choice.  I believe this has been done for men for whom a reversal of a
vasectomy was unsuccessful.  Maybe someone who knows for sure can chime
in.
Dave Perry
David S. - 24 Jun 2005 11:47 GMT
Hi Dave:
   I do not have plans to have children at my age, but in reading the
earlier post the question came to mind and I did not remember reading
anything about that here.  Now that we are seeing more younger men appear on
the ng, sorry for that by the way, it may become a more meaningful issue.
   Thank you.  Have a good weekend.
David S.

> David S.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> in.
> Dave Perry
Steve Kramer - 24 Jun 2005 20:04 GMT
It is impossible for a man to make a woman pregnant, but a doctor can get
into the testes, probably the tubes from the testes, and pull out enough
sperm for another tax deduction.

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

> Interesting question that I have not seen discussed here (maybe I missed it
> though).  After RP is it possible, with modern techniques, to obtain sperm
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> > ejaculation. Yes you still can have great sex and orgasms, but it'll be
> dry.
OCL - 27 Jun 2005 16:13 GMT
> It is impossible for a man to make a woman pregnant, but a doctor can get
> into the testes, probably the tubes from the testes, and pull out enough
> sperm for another tax deduction.

That would have to be one very small doctor! ;-)

OCL
David S. - 23 Jun 2005 19:40 GMT
My biopsy was in April, also Gleason 6, and the uro told me he wanted to
wait for the prostate tissue to heal before doing the RRP.  That was done in
August.  I was 55 at the time and decided on the surgery because, after
research, I felt it was the right choice for me.  Of course things have
changed in the last few years with the radiation alternatives, so the
decision today may not be as easy to make.  Anyway, my point was that taking
a couple months to read and learn, and to prepared for making a very
important decision in your life, is not at all unreasonable.  With the low
PSA, mine was 5.0, I would not worry about taking that amount of time.

Good luck to you.

Thank you.
David S.

> Hi everyone.  Thanks for all the info last week regarding the decision
> to get a biopsy even though my PSA was only .7
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> Reminder, 37 yr old, caucasian male.  Any info is appreciated!
 
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.