Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / June 2005
Biopsy Results in today.....
|
|
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!
|
|
|