Prostate stones

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Claude - 01 Jan 2006 15:08 GMT

A 60 year old friend of mine went through the usual anxiety when his
internist felt an irregularity in the prostate during the DRE. Despite his
low PSA---2.2--- and no urinary symtoms, his doc rightly immediately
referred him to a urologist. The urologist did what I gather was an
ultrasound and diagnosed a stone in the prostate. Though he is rescheduled
for another appointment in 3 months, the uro told him not to worry, that
these stones are fairly harmless.

The reason I mention this is that in the 4 years or so I have been reading
(sometimes just scanning) this forum, I can't recall prostate stones being
mentioned. Doing a Google search indicates they are quite common and often
are the cause of the prostitis that elevates the PSA. Just another reason
for someone not to panic when the doc feels an irregularity on the prostate.

Reply to this Message

KenA - 02 Jan 2006 01:18 GMT

Hi Claude,
When I had my biopsy on Oct 31, (w/ultrasound), my uro remarked that he saw far fewer
calcium deposits in my prostate than he would have expected for someone who's 53.
Would these have been the 'stones'? Since the biopsy also found cancer, the small
number of 'stones' I had is now merely a 'novelty', as I had my RLRP last Tuesday...
Ken

>A 60 year old friend of mine went through the usual anxiety when his internist felt
>an irregularity in the prostate during the DRE. Despite his low PSA---2.2--- and no
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> cause of the prostitis that elevates the PSA. Just another reason for someone not
> to panic when the doc feels an irregularity on the prostate.

Reply to this Message

Claude - 02 Jan 2006 02:25 GMT

> Hi Claude,
> When I had my biopsy on Oct 31, (w/ultrasound), my uro remarked that he
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 'novelty', as I had my RLRP last Tuesday...
> Ken

Ken, I think they are. Evidently many of us have small deposits; others
have large ones. My friend is one of the latter. Claude

Reply to this Message

c palmer - 02 Jan 2006 23:22 GMT

"KenA" <kabrahamsen@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:v_WdnfEYP6H-4iXenZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
Hi Claude,
When I had my biopsy on Oct 31, (w/ultrasound), my uro remarked that he
saw far fewer calcium deposits in my prostate than he would have
expected for someone who's 53. Would these have been the 'stones'? Since
the biopsy also found cancer, the small number of 'stones' I had is now
merely a 'novelty', as I had my RLRP last Tuesday... Ken

Ken, I think they are. Evidently many of us have small deposits; others
have large ones. My friend is one of the latter. Claude
==========
hi claude/ken - when i had my biopsy, the surgeon was pointing out these
"white spots" on the monitor and how pronounced they were. since i was
there for pca testing, i was thinking, "can he see these cancer masses?"

when i ask him about those white spots, he said that i had lots of
prostate stones. i found out that 75% of men of prostate stones in
their 50's and 100% of the men have prostate stones when they are their
70's. the stones form from prostate infections and you don't even know
you had any infection at all.

~ 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

Reply to this Message