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 / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

diagnosis & path report feedback requested

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 00:18 GMT
We got the dx of PCa yesterday.  Today I got the path report.  It is
nothing like Tom said we should get, but here it is.  Seriously, this
is the whole thing word for word.
-
Background: 48 years old, normal DRE x2, PSAs since 12/13/05: 20.1,
26.3, 22.15 (different lab)
-
01/06/2006 - Surgical Pathology Report

Clinic # & Pt Name
Requested by? Matthew Bui, M.D.

DIAGNOSIS:

A.  Right prostate, needle core biopsies: Prostatic adenocarcinoma,
aclinar type, Gleason score 3+3=6, involving one core (less than 1mm
maximal tumor lenght).  No perinerual invasion.

B.  Left prostate, needle core biopsies: Prostatic adenocarcinoma,
acinar type, Gleason score 4+3=7, involving one core (1mm maximal tumor
length).  No perinerual invasion.

1/7/2006 12:54 CT   Kevin O Leslie, MD

CLINICAL INFORMATION:
Elevated PSA.

SPECIMEN(S):
A: Right Prostate
B: Left Prostate Biopsy

PS06-127 A1 B1

GROSS DESCRIPTION:
Performed by Steve Groebner, Pathologist's Assistant
The requisition, container, and cassettes are checked and all match.

A.  Received in formalin labeled "right prostate biopsy" are 5
thread-like fragments of yellow-tan tissue measuring from 1.5 to 1.9 cm
in maximum dimension.  All submitted.

B.  Received in fromalin labeled "left prostate biopsy" are 5
thread-like fragment of yellow-tan tissue measuring from 1.6 to 2.2 cm
in maximum dimension.  All submitted.
01/06/2006/tos

(then there is a disclaimer about the lab certification.  "These tests
should not be regarded as investigational or for research.")
judamd@aol.com - 13 Jan 2006 00:45 GMT
The report looks like a pretty routine lab report.  The cancerous
part(s) are pretty small but remember the biopsy only samples the
prostate - you won't know how much cancer is there unless you have
surgery and the whole gland is examined.  The lack of perineural
invasion is good but typically of little consequence either way.  The
fact that the specimens were examined by the Physician's Assistant may
be of some concern and you could have them examined by another
pathologist - just ask for the specimens and take them elsewhere
although the information probably won't be much different than what you
already have.

You now start down the long road of deciding what to do about the
cancer.  Do lots of reading, talk to at least a few different doctors
regarding radiation/surgery, and feel free to ask anything on this
newsgroup.  Someone here always has constructive information for every
question.
Dave Perry
Steve Jordan - 13 Jan 2006 01:03 GMT
> We got the dx of PCa yesterday.  Today I got the path report.  
>  
(snip lab report finding of PCa)

The very next thing to do is to have the specimens examined by a PCa
pathology specialist. Sometimes the local scoring might not be changed,
but very often it is. *Everything *that is done from here on is
absolutely dependent upon the accuracy of the biopsy examination.
Ensuring its accuracy is simple prudence.

Here is the Prostate Cancer Research Institute's webpage on this topic:
http://www.prostate-cancer.org/tools/forms/biopsy_report.html

A vast amount of objective and reliable information is there for the
taking on the PCRI site.

AIUI, Juniper is in Prescott AZ. Bostwick Labs recently opened a
facility in Phoenix. No, I don't hold any stock in the company :-\

The specimens, which I emphasize are the property of the *patient*, not
the medic, can be sent to the chosen lab with little inconvenience.
Medics, especially uros, know about this but usually will not volunteer
the information.

I cannot state it too strongly: validation (or not) by the specialist is
absolutely essential to proper staging of this individual's disease.

There is a lot more to staging this particular man's disease properly so
that the most effective treatment can be chosen, but this will do for a
first step.

Regards,

Steve J

"We must tailor the treatment to the nature of the disease. We must
listen to the biology."
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 01:57 GMT
Thank you very much for the information.  We are
studying-as-fast-as-we-can. :)
What if we took a tape recorder to our followup meeting with this doc?

Do you think if we ask him to send the slides to Bostwick in Phoenix he
will do it?  If he won't, then should we go get them while we are
there, and take them to Bostwick?
It is fully our intention to see more than one doctor.  I figure we
should go back to him once, but since he volunteered that the biopsy
"is not uncomfortable, and as a matter of fact, many men doze through
them."  This was not honest, so there goes one criteria for choosing a
doctor.

So maybe we shouldn't go back to him?  Both Steve and I have a history
of not changing doctors when warranted.  So we don't know what's
reasonable, or the appropriate response to this situation.
I.P. Freely - 13 Jan 2006 02:31 GMT
>  What if we took a tape recorder to our followup meeting with this doc?
> Do you think if we ask him to send the slides to Bostwick in Phoenix he
> will do it?  If he won't, then should we go get them while we are
> there, and take them to Bostwick?

My first uro sent his bx specimen straight to Bostwick from the get-go, and
offered it to the VA when I went that route. Ant doc who resisted forwarding
ANY of MY medical records or samples out for a second opinion --- or would
not let me record his/her detailed medical summary -- would never see me
again unless it was in court. over the specimen.

> he volunteered that the biopsy
> "is not uncomfortable, and as a matter of fact, many men doze through
> them."  This was not honest, so there goes one criteria for choosing a
> doctor. So maybe we shouldn't go back to him?

My first uro told me most of his pts barely noticed the bx, and that was my
experience. If the doc hadn't alerted me before each of the 12 samples, I
wouldn't have noticed them ... and that's without any anesthetic. On a pain
scale from 0 to 10, my dozen pokes were a 0.5.  Your doc was being honest,
and had no way to know your husband was out of the norm. One of my first
uro's bx patients rode his bicycle several miles back to work from the
procedure.

I.P.
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 02:53 GMT
Steve Jordan - 13 Jan 2006 02:36 GMT
> Thank you very much for the information.  We are
> studying-as-fast-as-we-can. :)
> What if we took a tape recorder to our followup meeting with this doc?
>  
Why not? It's been done. If he objects, run do not walk for the nearest
exit. And fire him.
> Do you think if we ask him to send the slides to Bostwick in Phoenix he
> will do it?  If he won't, then should we go get them while we are
> there, and take them to Bostwick?
>  
Those specimens are the property of the patient, not the medic! If he
refuses to send them on, which I think is unlikely, then, yes, get them
from the lab and deal directly with Bostwick. See their website,
http://www.bostwicklaboratories.com/default.htm
> It is fully our intention to see more than one doctor.  I figure we
> should go back to him once, but since he volunteered that the biopsy
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> reasonable, or the appropriate response to this situation.
>  
Well, I believe that the standard is: what is comfortable for the
patient. I recommend requiring the submission of the biopsy specimens to
a specialist lab before committing to *any *treatment. Or to further
treatment by a medic who does not inspire confidence.

Let us know how it goes.

Regards,

Steve J

"'MD' does not mean 'Medical Deity.'"
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD
Steve Kramer - 13 Jan 2006 23:21 GMT
> So maybe we shouldn't go back to him?  Both Steve and I have a history
> of not changing doctors when warranted.  So we don't know what's
> reasonable, or the appropriate response to this situation.

I've deleted all your that text to emphasize that it is not important.  What
is important is that Steve has cancer.  Because Steve is 48, it is likely
agressive (by comparison).  You may have a good doc for a cold, flu,
physicals, etc.  You may have had a good doc for DRE and biopsy.  Now you
need a good doctor for treating prostate cancer.  Don't look at it as
changing doctors.  You are now researching what doctor is best for Steve and
you; assuming you want him to be here when he's 68.
ron - 13 Jan 2006 23:40 GMT
Steve Kramer wrote...snip...
> What is important is that Steve has cancer.  Because Steve is 48, it is likely agressive
> (by comparison).

Steve...My understanding is that younger men generally present with
pathologic variables that are equal to or better than older men who
present at the same time,  Younger men also have recurrence rates that
are equal to or better than those for older men who are treated at the
same time.  Do you have a reference for your position?..Ron
juniper - 14 Jan 2006 00:56 GMT
>Steve Kramer wrote...snip...
>> What is important is that Steve has cancer.  Because Steve is 48, it is likely agressive
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>are equal to or better than those for older men who are treated at the
>same time.  Do you have a reference for your position?..Ron

I don't understand any of this, Ron.  Guess I'll learn
ron - 14 Jan 2006 01:52 GMT
I think Steve K. was saying that younger men (50 or younger) typically
have more aggresive disease.  I responded that the studies I am aware
of suggest otherwise.  Namely, that younger men, on average, have
PSA's, Gleason's, TNM staging, etc comparable to, or better than, older
men diagnosed at the same time.  Similarly, younger men fail treatment
no more frequently than older men who were treated at the same time.
So in general, the prognosis for younger men is no worse, perhaps
better, than older men.  Good news for your Steve...Ron
Steve Kramer - 14 Jan 2006 12:13 GMT
No citations, ron.  However, as it was explained to me, in comparison to say
an 80-year-old on one end and 40 year old on the other, the 48-year-old is
still producing cells at a significantly faster rate.  As such, they are
producing cancer cells at a significantly faster rate.  It is not a
Gleason-causes aggressiveness (at least I have no information regarding
that), but more a natural body cycle.

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, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

> Steve Kramer wrote...snip...
>> What is important is that Steve has cancer.  Because Steve is 48, it is
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> are equal to or better than those for older men who are treated at the
> same time.  Do you have a reference for your position?..Ron
Pops - 23 Jan 2006 15:44 GMT
Juniper,

With around 50 replies to you initial post you have received a
conglomerate of opinions that could reasonably be characterized as
"scary".

As you absorb all this information please remember that you are dealing
with an extremely diverse bunch of survivors, each with their own
unique story, each with their own unique interpretations, each with
their own private issues, each with their own fears and concerns. By
being here they have one very important thing in common. They (we) all
want to help!

Having said that, take us all with big grains of salt. There are
survivors here who represent the extremes of a Gaussian distribution.
Most of our posts are driven by our disease experience, our prognoses
(is that a word?), our treatments, our side effects, our quality of
life. Then there are the demographics; age, location, race, family,
education, vocation and even the sensitive metrics like social and
financial status.

Put this all together and you get a serious Mulligan stew, one whose
components are impossible to isolate, but one whose overall presence
should be warm and comforting. You and your husband are embarking on
your own unique journey and, as you proceed, you will add your own
unique components to our stew. You are welcome, and we will all
endeavor as best we can to make your journey bearable and your taste of
our stew savory.

I too have my own story, one that is not necessary to share with you at
this point.

Instead I will try to summarize the key points I have found to be my
grail in dealing with my journey to date.

In one short proclamation is can be stated as "Own Your Disease!"
Cancer is a monster, a monster that can't be killed. But cancer is a
monster that can be tamed. Untamed, it owns you, drives you, directs
you, restricts you, intimidates you, and, in the end can devour you.
Tamed you own it. It fits in your life as you allow it. You manage,
direct, restrict and minimize its impact. You understand and deal
confidently with its presence and its consequences.

There are four steps I have taken that have successfully tamed my
monster:

1) Knowledge!! Know your disease. Be careful here! Insufficient
information and understanding and you may feel like you are wandering
in the wilderness, too much and you may loose sight of the forest for
the trees. Learn and understand until you feel comfortable in executing
the steps that follow. There is no standard here. There CAN BE such a
thing as "too much information". There is a point for each of us where
the experts must take over and where we must rely on their judgment.
Overdo it and you can unnecessarily restrict your expert's options.
Under educate yourself and not only are you at the mercy of your chosen
experts, but that choice may be faulty, and the information they are
dealing with may be insufficient. The amount understanding required is
different for each of us.

2) Manage Your Disease! Make sure you are fully in charge. It is your
disease, your body, your life. Don't let anyone else, ANYONE, tell you
what to do, how to react, or what is important. The factors that
control your journey should be decided by you and you alone. This does
not mean that you are alone in your journey. Far from it (see following
steps) - no man is an island - you can't do it alone, BUT you can
manage what is happening and will happen to you. A couple of
recommendations: A) Plan for the worst, then expect the best. This will
minimize your disappointment when things don't turn out the best and
will maximize you response to positive results. B) Put your disease in
perspective. There is always something more important, someone worse
off. Don't let the management of your disease consume you.

3) Know and Cherish Your Support System! Attitude is everything, but
attitude is a reaction, a symptom, and its primary catalyst is your
support system. Your support system will consist of the people around
you; your family, friends, co-workers, and service providers (doctors
etc), AND, the way they react to and interact with your condition. They
should, and will willingly, walk with you on your journey and remind
you that your life is full of caring, love, and compassion. Reject the
naysayers and doom-and-gloomers. Theirs is generally a selfish agenda.
This is not a one way street! You must cherish your support system,
recognize and appreciate them, and they must understand thoroughly and
in all aspects what you are going through.

4) Share Your Journey. This is perhaps the hardest step to take.  For
many of us a diagnosis of cancer, particularly a cancer involving
sexual organs and functionality, is accompanied by an almost
involuntary isolationistic reaction. We may be embarrassed. We may
suffer, altruistically in silence. We may react angrily with "It isn't
anybody else's business". If we persist in isolating others from our
plight we are doomed to suffer in silence and hopelessness. Again, our
journey in successfully taming the cancer beast cannot be taken alone.
There is a direct parallel to addictive behavior. The process of
addictive recovery and that for successful cancer survival is
surprisingly similar.  First commit to survival. Then admit that it
can't be accomplished alone. Finally share your survival journey and
rely on the help you must and will receive in the process. There are
all sorts of mechanisms. This NG is one. There are countless other
forums and chat rooms. For that indispensable people-to-people factor
look for local support groups and meetings. They abound. For prostate
cancer there are the Man-To-Man and Us Too national/international
support groups. There are many others. As with AA meetings, find the
one(s) with which you are most comfortable. Finally, as with addiction,
relapse may happen. You may find yourself slipping into fear or despair
or even giving up hope. Rely on the ones, hopefully fellow survivors
with whom you have shared. They are your "sponsors" and when you are
down, they will do their utmost to bring you up and back on the
successful survivor's path.

We posting on this NG are here for you as we have been for those who
have come before. I remember well my first post and the outpouring of
support that buoyed me up. I hungrily absorbed the details, but that
was not and is not the most important part of the experience. What
really made the difference was that these folks were here for me and
that they cared, really cared. I can't say thank you enough.

Now I've shared with you and that act in itself generates one more
positive. It feels good!

You and your husband will be OK. Believe it! Live it! Survive!
juniper - 24 Jan 2006 01:22 GMT
> Juniper,

Pops,

Thank you so much. A dozen times through your post I started to
respond, but it is complete and powerful without me chopping it up.  50
posts!   Plus the emails and phone calls.  And we have been supported,
uplifted, educated.  Thank you all.

The thing that amazes me is.... how fast and how slow it has been. We
had an idea on 12/18 because of the PSA.  I knew before the Uro visit
on 1/5, but we didn't get the dx until 1/11.  The uro called me after
we sent a request to have the biopsies 2nd opinioned.  He spent more
time on the phone telling me he would give us "black and white" options
than he spent with us in the initial visit. He was not interested in
staging, only surgery.  So besides self-education, it has been a
challenge to get basic information so we can talk realistically with
the next doctor.  (Besides *finding* one.)

And as of today, we know enough to participate in staging and planning.
(For anyone new, take heart!  It *is* a river you can swim.  Try here:
www.prostateforum.org/videos.cfm)  Dr. O called today to schedule a
visit for next Tuesday.  We will have some basic tests done by then, so
she will know enough to structure next steps.  We are on our way.

There are other groups, very excellent ones.  But this was the first
one I found, and I imprinted.  It has been an excellent source of much
good for us.

Thank you all very much.  And thank you for your post, Pops.  It pulls
it all together, the bigger picture.  Much to learn from it, and also
much validation from it, as I find, yes, I'm doing that, and yes,
that's true....

Good luck all.

laurel
John Loomis - 13 Jan 2006 02:48 GMT
Hello Juniper,
   I have to say you are very lucky.  Number one, you were brave enough to
approach this group, and number 2 you have your husband checked out with
biopsy.
I was diagnosed when I was 49.
I had RP  1999 I was 49.....I am fine.
Now knowing this information, relax, take your lab work to a caring Prostate
Cancer Specialist.
Get his view, you can decide on radiatiopn, and seeds, and Radical
Prostatectomy.  I know they all sound ominous.
With your husbands age and his agreeing to visit a Prostate Cancer
Specialist, I believe he may do best with RP/
I am not a Dr.  I  am a survivor....I know hat you are going through, and
you will do well.
Love your husband, and find a treatment plan that fits yours and his.  If
you want to ask any questions, please do.
Wish you the best.
A friend, and survivor.
John Loomis
> We got the dx of PCa yesterday.  Today I got the path report.  It is
> nothing like Tom said we should get, but here it is.  Seriously, this
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> (then there is a disclaimer about the lab certification.  "These tests
> should not be regarded as investigational or for research.")
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 05:17 GMT
Thank you, John.  I am nit-picking with my questions, but you only get
one chance to do something the first time.  The upcoming is a first
second doctor visit (first since dx).  We are sending him a fax (to
save a day trip) and want to know what else we might ask for to be most
fully informed for that visit. It's Mayo Clinic, they did a b&w
ultrasound and I guess that's all they have.  But? MRIs?  Anything like
that?  He could order them for Steve to do up here, or we could go up
ahead of time so they'd be ready for the visit.  The purpose of this
letter is to gently suggest something that he ought to do and might not
otherwise.  As well as the orig idea for the 2nd path review.  If we're
going to see 2 or 3 drs, they may as well all have the same info, so
get it now. So, here's the fax and besides some "thank you so much"
stuff, what do you think?  Is it respectful enough for a Drs ego,
clear, accurate, and does it ask for what we need at this stage?  Steve
wants time to understand this stuff so he can go in with intelligent
questions.

--fax--I would like to have the biopsy specimens examined by a PCa
pathology specialist before our visit.  That way, we will have as much
information as possible when we meet.  As I understand it, correct
staging is critical to making a good decision, and this will ensure
that the biopsy has been examined by two different specialists.  Also,
please request PLOIDY analysis, and other appropriate tests you need.
The more information we have when we meet, the better quality of
decisions we can make.
Please send this to
Bostwick Laboratory
5050 N. 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85018
Telephone: 602-424-1580 Fax: 602-424-1581
And ask them to fax us a copy of their results as well.
If you will be needing any other tests that can be done locally
(bloodwork or scans), please let me know and I will take care of them
now.  You can let me know, or go through my physician, Dr. M.
I.P. Freely - 13 Jan 2006 08:04 GMT
> here's the fax and besides some "thank you so much"
> stuff, what do you think?  Is it respectful enough for a Drs ego,
> clear, accurate, and does it ask for what we need at this stage?  Steve
> wants time to understand this stuff so he can go in with intelligent
> questions.

My short answer is, "Your fax looks fine".
Here's my long, involved, SELF-involved (I surely can't speak for the NEXT
person), but -- I hope -- instructive and useful answer.
You seem well-suited for this approach; I hope parts of it will be of use.

1. I've taken several-page lists of questions and requests to 8-10 doctors
on my cancers.
2. I've asked for my records for second opinions (and third where
appropriate, such as surg/rad/med oncologists).
3. I've done these via phone calls and e-mails.
4. I've asked oncologists' opinions of other oncologists.
5. I've asked about specific treatments, debated merits of specific
treatments.
6. I call my surgeons by their first name, and vice versa.
7. I take extra effort to make sure the documents, films, and other data
they need are at their offices before I arrive for an appointment,
hand-carrying stuff when necessary, whether local or 220 miles away.

Sounds obnoxious, presumptive, maybe even arrogant, right? Well, not so fast
...

1. A.I left space after each question so I could take notes beside each
question. I made notes as they gave their spiels, which filled  most of my
spaces. By the time they asked, "Any questions?", few remained unanswered.
They went very quickly, so the docs soon learnd not to fear or resent my
clipboard.
B. They saw how serious I was about getting involved in my treatment, and
respected that.
C. Those lists had me ready to "walk down the hall" to talk with additional,
unexpected specialists with no notice. I got recommended for those walk-ins
because my docs knew I was prepared, and the walk-in specialists accepted me
for the same reason.
D. Not one doctor I talked to -- over a dozen, I think -- expressed ANY
dislike of my involvement and preparation. In fact several praised it, one
or two saying they wished every pt would do the same thing.

2. Not one doc has balked, and I was watching closely for signs of
resentment. The oncs in particular encouraged cross-checking with other
specialties.

3. My surgeons/oncs return my e-mails within hours, with e-mails or phone
calls. In fact, my first conversation -- essentially a mutual interview --  
with my ultimate PC surgeon was a one-hour phone call from him. They offer
solid answers and claim to like this approach, partly, I pressume, because
they can talk me at THEIR convenience rarther than by appointment only. They
have teams of oncs review the more complex e-mails, especially the huge one
in which I debated adjuvant treatment with them. Not only did I change their
minds, but they said I introduced some PC factors they hadn't thought of
before ... and these guys collectively wrote "PC for Dummies". (My point is
that they LISTEN to good questions and well-supported comments from
patients.)

4. No balks so far.

5. They call in other specialists when necessary, and direct me towards
online sources so I can do my own research.

6. I've got 30 years on these guys, they've seen me way beyond naked, and I
hope we can be more frank this way. Both of them seemed eager to accept
this.

7. Receptionists' and nurses' love that one. It has made their jobs easier,
has accelerated the overall process many times, has prevented a couple of
wasted appointments, and even catches some errors.

I've been doing this for 30 years, and not one provider has ever complained.
Quite the opposite, it has gotten me involved in conferences among
specialists on several occasions as they discussed my cases. This promotes a
greater mutual respect and flow of information, which leads to better
choices all around. I suspect it has gotten -- EARNED? -- me some special
perks, too, which never hurts.

I.P.
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 22:33 GMT
Thanks to everyone for all of your support.  This particular moment is
a low one for me.  I am up.  and down.  Dr. Bui called me today after
Steve's fax.  I was taking notes as he talked.  "plethora of
literature... you don't need to do all this stuff.... you can't tell
what's good research or bad, that's what I'm here for....  we have
people in so I can go over their options with them... I give them black
and white options... let me direct your search process..."  I asked if
he would need more information before making a decision about what to
do, he said "I probably would get an MRI or CAT scan" so I asked if
he'd do that now so we would have more complete information available
to discuss when we met.  He said no, he didn't have 20 minutes to
review the records, he was busy.  "its not what we do here, we have a
limited amount of time to spend with each patient."  I had the distinct
impression that the purpose of the next visit is to schedule surgery.
Period.  With him, of course.  I hate upsetting doctors, some sort of
childhood thing I guess.

Good news is: Sent request for Mayo to overnight the biopsies & parafin
(what the heck is paraffin for?) to Oppenheimer.  Called Bostwick, they
would just send the stuff to Virginia and suggested we do it direct
(what's the Phoenix office for?), so I looked at the others at
http://www.prostate-cancer.org/tools/forms/biopsy_report.html.  Tried
Oppenheimer first since someone had mentionied him to me, his site was
so cool, the phone call was so cool, I just chose them without further
ado.

The thing is, I discovered our insurance is not good.  Arizona only,
limited doctors.  Next summer we can change plans, get a good one, but
don't know how to figure out whether or not that would be harmful.  Or
what to do in between.

What we really want is a local doctor who would be a good support and
source of information and testing while we learn.  One who would not be
offended if we did not get treatment from him/her.  How could we find
someone like that?

Also, what are the other next steps for testing?  We can ask Steve's
PCP to order MRIs or something.  Or should that wait until the 2nd path
opinion is back?
ron - 13 Jan 2006 22:56 GMT
Did your doc put your husband on antibiotics in preparation for a
follow-up PSA?  Infections can drive PSA up dramatically.  If the PSA
really is "20", then there is a fair chance that the disease is
systemic.  Knowing whether the disease is systemic vs. local can
dramatically affect the treatment plan.  Two relatively simple things
you can do would be 1) blood draw for PAP (prostatic acid phosphatase),
readings > 3 are consistent with systemic disease; 2) have a ploidy
analysis run on your biopsy sample, this test can also comment on how
advanced / aggressive the disease is, Bostwick runs this test,
Oppenheimer may as well...Best wishes and good health, Ron
juniper - 13 Jan 2006 23:11 GMT
Oppenheimer will do a ploidy.  I think our doctor is pretty much
history.  We'll try to figure out a way to get a PAP ordered.
juniper - 14 Jan 2006 01:37 GMT
>Did your doc put your husband on antibiotics in preparation for a
>follow-up PSA?  Infections can drive PSA up dramatically.  If the PSA

Well, it has been a week since the biopsy.  His prostate still hurts
very much.  When he comes, it is blood clotty and gross.  At first, it
was bloody, but like fresh blood.  So.  I'm thinking there is something
wrong.  And that it is quite possibly prostatis.  And I thought, silly
me, that the urologist would test for stuff like that.  Then I thought
that the biopsy would identify something like that, but it didn't
(maybe it would, and there isn't any.)

We kind of have a plan.  We only have so many hours a day to learn,
since both of us work.   Steve's goal is to get all the info, make some
tentative decisions, then talk to doctors and let them have their say,
then make a decision he will live with.

We have a good naturopath here in town.  Steve's going to see him, get
the PAP test (should we also get a free PSA?  That hasn't been done
yet.)  Also of course whatever else he has to say.

We are also going to schedule with one of the three (all in one office)
urologists in town.   If he is supportive, maybe he'll do the PAP.
Tell him our approach, if he supports it, great, if not, we were
looking for a doctor when we went to him.

By this time the 2nd opinion from Oppenheimer should be back.  We
should also have had an exam for what is going on with his
prostate/blood/pain.

This is all a bit too much.  Tonight we are eating frozen pizza and
going to be early...
doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com - 17 Jan 2006 03:42 GMT
>>Did your doc put your husband on antibiotics in preparation for a
>>follow-up PSA?  Infections can drive PSA up dramatically.  If the PSA
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>was bloody, but like fresh blood.  So.  I'm thinking there is something
>wrong.  And that it is quite possibly prostatis.

 And I thought, silly
>me, that the urologist would test for stuff like that.  Then I thought
>that the biopsy would identify something like that, but it didn't
>(maybe it would, and there isn't any.)

I didn't see anyone comment on this, so in case you are still worried
about the blood, what you describe sounds similar to what I and
another person I talked to, experienced.  The initial fresh looking
blood coloration  will darken as the damage from the biopsy heals and
the blood ages  till eventually, after several weeks, perhaps up to 8,
the appearance will return to more or less normal.  My Original URO
said there might be blood for a week, then when I asked him how come I
was still seeing it over 2 weeks later he said it could be for a
month, that his "info sheet" needed to be revised.  That was one of
the reasons he's no longer my URO.  
Steve Jordan - 13 Jan 2006 23:48 GMT
> Thanks to everyone for all of your support.  This particular moment is
> a low one for me.  I am up.  and down.  Dr. Bui called me today after
> Steve's fax.  I was taking notes as he talked.  "plethora of
> literature... you don't need to do all this stuff.... you can't tell
> what's good research or bad, that's what I'm here for....  
Lawn fertilizer.

I have printed and given to my med onc many well-founded scientific
papers and she has thanked me for them. Says it helps to keep her on her
toes. I just don't waste her time with cockamamie speculations and urine
therapies. BTW, she has also given clinical studies to *me*.
> "...............................................................................................we have
> people in so I can go over their options with them... I give them black
> and white options... let me direct your search process..."  
Watch out, but OTOH he might have a valuable contribution to make. I'll
take good advice from The Devil himself -- if I'm convinced that it's valid.

I recommend adding his (Bui's not Satan's) advice to the mix from which
the tx decision will emerge. Keeping in mind, as Strum says, "'MD' does
not mean medical deity."
> I asked if
> he would need more information before making a decision about what to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> review the records, he was busy.  "its not what we do here, we have a
> limited amount of time to spend with each patient."  
Aargh! How callous!

According to Strum, given the Gleason 6 score, an MRI and CAT scan might
be a waste of time and money. Refer to the Prostate Cancer Research
Institute at http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html
and search on MRI and CAT scan. Also buy and study the book _A Primer on
Prostate Cancer_ subtitled "The Empowered Patient's Guide" by medical
oncologist Stephen B. Strum, MD, and Donna Pogliano, PCa warrior.

In my case, with an initial Gleason 4+5=9 and low PSA (dangerous), the
MRI and CAT scan were appropriate.
> I had the distinct impression that the purpose of the next visit is to schedule surgery.
> Period.  With him, of course.  
As I understand Steve's numbers, to the limited extent he has numbers
(that's a dig at the medic for failing, typically, to do a complete PCa
workup),  I does not seem to me, *as a layman* that there is any great
rush to treat. This Gleason 6 (so far) PCa has probably been developing
for years; another few weeks will probably make little difference in the
outcome.
> I hate upsetting doctors, some sort of childhood thing I guess.
>  
That's the God Complex upon which many of them trade.
> Good news is: Sent request for Mayo to overnight the biopsies & parafin (what the heck is paraffin for?)
AIUI, it preserves the specimens indefinitely and is easy to manipulate
if new cuts must be made.
> to Oppenheimer.  
A friend here in PHX sez that Oppenheimer "has become unresponsive."
Dunno what the problem is, if any. Maybe just that he hasn't received
his report as quickly as he'd like (dangerous case).
> Called Bostwick, they would just send the stuff to Virginia and suggested we do it direct
> (what's the Phoenix office for?)
Excellent question.
> The thing is, I discovered our insurance is not good.  Arizona only,
> limited doctors.  Next summer we can change plans, get a good one, but
> don't know how to figure out whether or not that would be harmful.  Or
> what to do in between.
>  
Good lord. But, if it covered the initial path exam, it seems to me that
it should cover a second opinion.
> What we really want is a local doctor who would be a good support and
> source of information and testing while we learn.  One who would not be
> offended if we did not get treatment from him/her.  How could we find
> someone like that?
>  
This is where contact with the folks in the local UsToo group could
prove helpful. Ask questions; the result will be a plethora of
information. Remember that each of the guys has been there, done that,
got the T-shirt.

In my case, after I fired my rad onc I hired a med onc in Scottsdale.
Have a good relationship with her (maybe 'cuz she listens to me and goes
along whenever I make sense) and consider her quite bright (maybe for
that reason?).

Her name is Sharon M. Ondreyco of Palo Verde Hematology and Oncology.
For details, contact me via  e-mail.
> Also, what are the other next steps for testing?  We can ask Steve's
> PCP to order MRIs or something.  Or should that wait until the 2nd path
> opinion is back?
>  
If there's no particular rush (and oh how I know *that* feeling), I'd
await the Oppenheimer result. There is a number of staging tests that
can be, but often are not, done in order to help understand the biology
of this particular tumor. Knowing that, one can plan the appropriate tx
rather than charging blindly ahead, possibly ending up nowhere. Or in
deep trouble. The confirmed Gleason score will help tremendously in
planning.

This is war without quarter, take no prisoners.

Regards,

Steve J, who asks, where's the snow??

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"
I.P. Freely - 14 Jan 2006 02:25 GMT
I support Steve's comment that MRI and usually CTs do little to detect PC.
Additionally, I believe I've read that the PLOIDY test you've mentioned a
couple of times is also of questionable value. I'm not sure about that, so I
hope someone more sure about it will address the PLOIDY test.

I.P.
Steve Kramer - 13 Jan 2006 23:13 GMT
I'm sorry, Juniper.  48 is too young for PCa.  And, it will be harder for
you than for him.  You truley have my sympathy.

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, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

> We got the dx of PCa yesterday.  Today I got the path report.  It is
> nothing like Tom said we should get, but here it is.  Seriously, this
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> (then there is a disclaimer about the lab certification.  "These tests
> should not be regarded as investigational or for research.")
steve - 14 Jan 2006 00:13 GMT
Hey, Steve, thanks.  I seriously doubt it will be harder for me than
him.  (I'm writing on my Steve's computer, but this is Laurel).  I
doubt that anything is harder to face than a threat to a man's
virility.  From what I see of men.  But if I could take the pain and
lighten his, I would.  I feel like I should be Mother Teresa or
something.  Guess what I am?  Up and down, emotional.  When I got home
from work (he gets home before I do), and he told me he got a call with
the dx, guess what I did?  Did I hug him, murmer soothing words, say
all the right things in just the right way?  Oh, no.  I yelled.  Yelled
about the doctor, about the pain of the biopsy, about whatever.  Who
knows what. (I pretty much knew what it would be, so it wasn't
surprise.)   So, I hate for it to be true but it probably is that he is
carrying at least as much as me, not counting the fact that he is the
one with PCa.  So I have the same personality, (far from perfect), plus
I'm less stable.  Jeeze.  When he deserves is rainbows and down pillows
and angels singing in his ear....

I'll email you about your Scottsdale doctor.  Thank you.
Steve Kramer - 14 Jan 2006 19:19 GMT
news:1137197628.814099.105420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> Hey, Steve, thanks.  I seriously doubt it will be harder for me than
> him.  (I'm writing on my Steve's computer, but this is Laurel).

I tell you the following not to scare you but so that when they occur, you
will recognise them and be better able to cope.

You may have witnessed that on this NG there is disagreement along a wide
range of topics, sometimes vehement and sometimes off topic.  But there is
very little discussed here for which there is no opposing opinion.  However,
I do believe there is 100% concensus that the prostate cancer patient is
lucky to not have to be the wife:

He and she feel the same stress when the diagnosis is made.  He may go into
shock and if he does, she needs to carry on.  She needs to research it with
him and go to consultations and make life altering decisions with him.  When
he has his surgery, she will be in the waiting room for hours.  He will
sleep through it.  He will sleep for a day or two at the hospital and for
days at home.  She will be carrying for him when he does.  All who come to
see him will pray for him and wish him well and most will forget her.

Later, when he is depressed, she will be his target and his salvation.  When
he wants sex, she will comply to unnatural things.  When he doesn't want
sex, she will do without and likely wonder if she is the cause.   When he
leaks, she will wash his clothes.  When he gets scared, she will comfort
him.  If it gets worse, she will redouble her efforts.  If it kills him, his
struggle is over and hers will carry on for many more years.

So, when his treatment is scheduled, it will be you for whom I pray.

> doubt that anything is harder to face than a threat to a man's
> virility.

Just another point of order, virility, or more accurately, impotence, is
often one of the top three depressers, but not as often Number One as is
incontinence.  The third (usually either #2 or #3) is loss of life.

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, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

juniper - 15 Jan 2006 03:22 GMT
Thanks for your support, Steve.  How sobering.  I'm not much into the
future right now, since my main goal seems to be trying to get a handle
on my attention span.  A lot going on at work, not counting all this.
Thank you also for pointing out the correct term for what I meant,
impotence.  I doubt that I would take the sex thing personally,
although I do like the feeling that he can't control himself around me,
and I guess that experience might go away.  Life goes on.  And
interesting about the incontinence.  I wonder if its more about the
dignity piece or about the fact that it is continually a hassle 24/7.
Both would be bad.

I decided to stop writing so much because I'm, like, filling your
inboxes with every momentary drama/trauma of this process, and even I'm
getting tired of it.  Thank you all for your patience.  Although it
appears that decision didn't have much impact, since here I am writing
again.

I wrote in the alt.science.prostatitis about wanting to ferret out and
treat any possible prostatitis going on with Steve, to clear the
picture if needed.  So if you guys have any input for that I would
appreciate it also.

My best regards to you all.  My heart is very open these days, a great
deal of that is due to the love I feel in here.  Trust me, information
is love.  

Regards,

Laurel
Steve Kramer - 15 Jan 2006 12:17 GMT
> Thank you also for pointing out the correct term for what I meant,
> impotence.  I doubt that I would take the sex thing personally,
> although I do like the feeling that he can't control himself around me,
> and I guess that experience might go away.  Life goes on.

Actually, at least temporarily, he will merely have the inability to have an
erection.  He can still be stimulated to climax and he will still have the
desire, but just no erection.  Later, ED drugs, shots and/or a pump will
help this.  And still later, he will likely get it all back (albeit a tad
shorter).

> I decided to stop writing so much because I'm, like, filling your
> inboxes with every momentary drama/trauma of this process, and even I'm
> getting tired of it.  Thank you all for your patience.  Although it
> appears that decision didn't have much impact, since here I am writing
> again.

Always remember...  at any one moment, there are more people here to give
support than to receive it.  All came here first for support.  Many of us
stick around.  Some of us continue to need support.  Some of us need support
at different junctions along the way.  But, at any one moment, there are
more people giving than receiving.  So, do not worry about asking for more
than we can give.
steve_pct - 16 Jan 2006 21:27 GMT
> --
> PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05
> PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08

Steve & all-
I have written a signature-thing like I see in here.  Is this correct
and appropriate?

PSA 1.1   03/27/1997
PSA 2.3   08/7/2000
PSA 20.1  12/13/2005
PSA 26.3  12/18/2005
PSA 22.15 01/05/2005
Biopsy 01/06/2005 G6 (3+3), A1, No perinerual invasion, <1 mm
Biopsy 01/06/2005 G7 (4+3), B1, No perinerual invasion, 1 mm max
Steve Kramer - 17 Jan 2006 01:37 GMT
Juniper,

There is no signature that is recognized as correct or incorrect.  A couple
of years ago, I found I and others were constantly repeating their
histories.  So, I developed a signature that included, as succinctly as
possible, what I have been through.  I used to include catheter removal, pad
graduations, erections, etc., but it got unwieldy.  I have five years of
cancer to record.  You are at the beginning of your journey.  If you wanted
the closest emulation (which would do me proud) it would be:

> PSA 22.1 01/05/2005 @ 48
> Biopsy 01/06/2005 G7 (4+3), T2c

This, of course, if it is T2c.

>> --
>> PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Biopsy 01/06/2005 G6 (3+3), A1, No perinerual invasion, <1 mm
> Biopsy 01/06/2005 G7 (4+3), B1, No perinerual invasion, 1 mm max
steve - 16 Jan 2006 18:49 GMT
Well, it turns out I check this topic many times a day to see if
anyone's written anything.  It is my main support. Everyone says "let
us know what we can do" and I tell them I will, but all we need right
now is a doctor with information and without an agenda.  No one even
knows a urologist.  Half the people I know are talking about
alternative healing.  I'm okay with considering alternative stuff, but
that's just as premature as scheduling surgery today.

Tell me if I'm thinking right, or not.  I understand that you
understand that this is traumatic, confusing, etc.  I know you know far
more than I.  If I am going off into space (bearing left, banking for a
right at Andromeda), please tell me.

Today the doctors' office are open again, and I am faced with a phone
book and an insurance list, trying to choose a doctor out of thin
air...  Here's what I want, tell me if it is reasonable:
-> A complete urological workup.
-> A complete description of Steve's disease, and stage.

Here's what we have: the path report.  Also, Mayo said they'd overnight
the biopsies to Oppenheimer today.  I'll fax Oppenheimer with all the
contact info (I'm feeling a little distrustful).  Y'all suggested a PAP
test (right?).  Okay, I'll try and get that done.  I wonder if we
should get a free PSA.

What else is there?  Testing to rule out prostatitis?  I realize he has
cancer, but to me that makes more of a reason to identify and treat any
other stuff going to, to clear up the picture.  Right?  Wrong?

The only urologists in town are surgeons.  Steve is leaning toward
radiation, and I put what I know if his info in a (Sloan Ketterling? I
forget) calculator, and it gave 30 years vs. 10 years or something.
Using radiation.  So that may very well be an option.  Maybe we should
see a urological radiologist to get a workup?  There's one in
Cottonwood, I think.  Only an hour away.  We don't mind going to
Phoenix, or Tucson, or wherever, but it seems like what's the point?
What difference is there, really?  For the assessment piece?  I don't
mind going to someone who's not on the insurance, even though we may
well need all our finances down the road, if I *knew* who to go to.
Again, if I am just creating a problem where none exists, please speak
frankly and clearly.  Send Me Some Mental Floss!

We are going to try to take next Tuesday off to come to the support
group in Phoenix.  That seems like a long, long time from now.

Thank you all again,

Laurel

Oh, I wrote all this on Steve's computer, doesn't matter except if you
try to email me I won't see it unless you pick one of the juniper posts
for my address.
Steve Jordan - 16 Jan 2006 19:37 GMT
Juniper wrote, on Steve's computer:
> Today the doctors' office are open again, and I am faced with a phone
> book and an insurance list, trying to choose a doctor out of thin
> air...  Here's what I want, tell me if it is reasonable:
> -> A complete urological workup.
> -> A complete description of Steve's disease, and stage.
>  
I am getting the impression that Juniper and Steve are feeling pressure
to do something -- anything. I believe that that is the path to choosing
a tx that may not be the optimum. Take the time to do it right.
> Here's what we have: the path report.  Also, Mayo said they'd overnight
> the biopsies to Oppenheimer today.  I'll fax Oppenheimer with all the
> contact info (I'm feeling a little distrustful).  Y'all suggested a PAP
> test (right?).  Okay, I'll try and get that done.  I wonder if we
> should get a free PSA.
>  
A fPSA test can be helpful in staging. It's another datum.
> What else is there?  Testing to rule out prostatitis?  
A urine test for prostatitis should have been done before the biopsy.
The latter should have shown any evidence of it if it was present.
> I realize he has
> cancer, but to me that makes more of a reason to identify and treat any
> other stuff going to, to clear up the picture.  Right?  Wrong?
>  
I believe that the matter has moved beyond such early staging.
> The only urologists in town are surgeons.  
*All *urologists are surgeons. Some are more familiar with tx of PCa
than others and should -- should! -- refer the patient if/when the case
has developed beyond his specialty.
> Steve is leaning toward
> radiation, and I put what I know if his info in a (Sloan Ketterling? I
> forget) calculator, and it gave 30 years vs. 10 years or something.
> Using radiation.  So that may very well be an option.  Maybe we should
> see a urological radiologist to get a workup?  
I think that what Juniper really has in mind is a radiation oncologist.
I can recommend one in Scottsdale.
> There's one in
> Cottonwood, I think.  Only an hour away.  We don't mind going to
> Phoenix, or Tucson, or wherever, but it seems like what's the point?
> What difference is there, really?  
There can be a huge and vital difference. What's needed is what is
called in the field "an artist." That's why discussion here and at a
support group (isn't the local Prescott UsToo group up and running??) is
so very important.
> For the assessment piece?  I don't
> mind going to someone who's not on the insurance, even though we may
> well need all our finances down the road, if I *knew* who to go to.
>  
See above. Send me a message and I'll pass along the info on both the
med onc previously mentioned and the rad onc.
> Again, if I am just creating a problem where none exists, please speak
> frankly and clearly.  
>  
I think that I recognize the signs of the stress of overload. Stop. Take
a deep breath. Resolve to combat this disease and not allow it to
engender panic. The dx is not a death sentence by any means.

This is the well-known dance with the PCa bear. Sometimes the bear
leads, sometimes the patient leads.

Steve is newly diagnosed. The Prostate Cancer Research Institute has a
special section on its website for such folks. It's at:
http://prostate-cancer.org/education/education.html#newly_diagnosed
The first sight of the index can be daunting, but approaching it step by
step as an educational task will reduce the workload to manageable
parts. It's like studying a new language; one begins with small steps
and eventually, with perseverance, becomes fluent.

And last, I cannot emphasize too strongly that preparation for this
struggle is absolutely necessary. It involves studying, learning, and
taking charge. I have previously recommended excellent sources of
information.

Knowledge is Life!

Regards,

Steve J
steve_pct - 16 Jan 2006 21:08 GMT
> Juniper wrote, on Steve's computer:
> > What else is there?  Testing to rule out prostatitis?
> A urine test for prostatitis should have been done before the biopsy.

It should have been, then I'd have one less thing to think about.
Along with fPSA, PAP-- anything to indicate to me that the doctor was
approaching this with any interest besides scheduling a surgical date
as soon as he got the biopsy results.  I asked if he was going to do
other tests, and he said like what, I said, "A PSA?"  "Do you want me
to do one?"  I nodded, and he said, "Okay, I'll do one."  Couldn't even
be bothered to check the fPSA box on the form, I guess.

> > cancer, but to me that makes more of a reason to identify and treat any
> > other stuff going to, to clear up the picture.  Right?  Wrong?
> I believe that the matter has moved beyond such early staging.

As a staging matter, that may be true.  But someone on this list said
that to him, there was value in removing cancer to reduce the amt in
the system, even if surgery didn't get it all.  In the same light, to
me, if my husband has several things going on in his prostate, then
taking care of all of them cannot hurt.  Even if PCa is The Big C, it
doesn't make the rest of his health unimportant.  And, I'm only
guessing, it seems like whatever treatment is done would be easier
and/or have better results if there are no complicating factors.

I'm not ignoring the implication that his cancer is not good, possibly
advanced.  Because of the PSAs, I guess.  Since the Gleasons aren't
*that* bad.  I appreciate your offer to provide some names, because
that is our #1 need right now.  Except maybe a month off of work, to
learn this full time.

If anyone wants to send me recommendations (or anti-recommendations) of
doctors, via email, please do.

Thank you all again,

Laurel
ron - 16 Jan 2006 19:40 GMT
steve wrote...snip...
> The only urologists in town are surgeons.

All urologists are surgeons, you may also want to consult with a
radiation oncologist and an oncologist who specializes in PCa.

> Steve is leaning toward radiation,

Younger men are often discouraged from choosing radiation because of
the chance of secondar cancers.  10 years post treatment the incidence
seems to be in the range of a few percent.  The number is expected to
climb and plateau somewhere in the 10-20 year range.  Search "secondary
cancer" within this NG to read more.

>and I put what I know if his info in a (Sloan Ketterling? I
> forget) calculator, and it gave 30 years vs. 10 years or something.  Using radiation.  So
> that may very well be an option.

This doesn't sound right.

>  Maybe we should
> see a urological radiologist to get a workup?  There's one in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> mind going to someone who's not on the insurance, even though we may
> well need all our finances down the road, if I *knew* who to go to.

A partial list of "artists" can be found at
http://www.cancer.prostate-help.org/canames.htm
Again, one of the larger questions in front of you and your husband is
whether the disease is systemic or not.  An assessment of this question
will help you select a treatment strategy.  A good PCa oncologist could
help with this question.

> Again, if I am just creating a problem where none exists, please speak
> frankly and clearly.  Send Me Some Mental Floss!
>
> We are going to try to take next Tuesday off to come to the support
> group in Phoenix.  That seems like a long, long time from now.

This will probably help a lot...Ron
steve_pct - 16 Jan 2006 21:22 GMT
>> All urologists are surgeons, you may also want to consult with a
> radiation oncologist and an oncologist who specializes in PCa.
Any recommendations will be appreciated.

> Younger men are often discouraged from choosing radiation because of
> the chance of secondar cancers.  10 years post treatment the incidence
> seems to be in the range of a few percent.  The number is expected to
> climb and plateau somewhere in the 10-20 year range.  Search "secondary
> cancer" within this NG to read more.
This is very important information, Ron, thank you.  There is a huge
history of colon cancer in his family.

> This doesn't sound right.
Well, ignorance (mine) breeds error.  Next time I find it again I will
see what I thought I was talking about.

>                                                                A good PCa oncologist could
> help with this question.
Thank you.  I needed this piece of information. Please feel free to
recommend such a doctor.  I will look at the link you sent.

I am kind of freaked out about not having a doctor.  Steve is more
relaxed about it.  I feel far more pressure than he does to take some
action.  I don't know why; he was right there when his dad died of this
disease after it had gone to his brain.  Maybe I'm too pressured and
need to slow down; maybe he's too laid back and needs to get real.
Maybe a bit of both.  I'll feel much better, though, when we have a
doctor to explore the situation with.
I.P. Freely - 16 Jan 2006 22:48 GMT
Laurel wrote>

> I am kind of freaked out about not having a doctor.  Steve is more
> relaxed about it. I feel far more pressure than he does to take some
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Maybe a bit of both.  I'll feel much better, though, when we have a
> doctor to explore the situation with.

Some men are flat idiots about doctors and about their lives. I even know a
couple of guys who actually SMOKE, and one friend was very ill for a year
before he collapsed and almost died, at which point he saw a doctor and was
"cured" almost overnight. I'll never understand people like that, and Steve
sounds like one of them. His life is in your hands, plain and simple.

(The "cured" friend had a simple and easily treated blood infection, but
refuses to see doctors until an ambulance has to be called.) I presume he's
dead now, simply because he is in his 50s and refuses to take ANY care of
himself.)

I.P.
juniper - 16 Jan 2006 23:14 GMT
Hey, I.P.  Thanks for the note.  I don't think I gave a correct
impression.  He is reading the Oppenheimer site, and also the
prostate-cancer.org site.  I would guess he does an hour or more of
this a day.  We still haven't received any of the books I ordered, I
think I'll see if any of the bookstores in town have the Strum book
today.  The library doesn't have it.  So when I get the extra copy,
I'll give them one.  Its just that he takes the "there's time" approach
far more than I do.  But on the other hand, you would have thought that
he would have asked for a PSA every year after watching his dad die.
About his life being in my hands, I don't think I accept that
responsibility.  That's why we have this situation, I guess, with a PSA
that went from 2.2 to 26.3 over 5 years.
Brian - 17 Jan 2006 00:22 GMT
> Younger men are often discouraged from choosing radiation because of the
> chance of secondary cancers.  10 years post treatment the incidence
> seems to be in the range of a few percent.  

I look at this and chuckle: I'm at 100% chance now, going DOWN to a few %
sounds like a 95%+ improvement in my chances!

> The number is expected to climb and plateau somewhere in the 10-20
> year range.  Search "secondary cancer" within this NG to read more.

Also, radiation treatment paths are not all equal.  HDR and LDR
"brachytherapy" have lower "secondary cancer" chances than 3dCRT, IMRT and
IGRT are lower than 3dCRT, things are getting better refinement every year.
ron - 17 Jan 2006 01:21 GMT
Brian wrote...snip...
radiation treatment paths are not all equal...
...IMRT and IGRT are lower than 3dCRT, things are getting better
refinement every year
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just about focusing the beam, see
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003 May 1;56(1):83-8; Radiation-induced
second cancers: the impact of 3D-CRT and IMRT; Hall EJ, Wuu CS;
"Altogether, IMRT is likely to almost double the incidence of second
malignancies compared with conventional radiotherapy "
Brian - 18 Jan 2006 01:14 GMT
> Brian wrote...snip...
> radiation treatment paths are not all equal... ...IMRT and IGRT are lower
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> double the incidence of second malignancies compared with conventional
> radiotherapy "

Over what time frame?

(if you'd include the URL I'd go read it myself)
ron - 18 Jan 2006 02:15 GMT
Brian...Whenever you want a medical abstract, go to PubMed
http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi
and type in an author, piece of the title, etc...Ron
Steve Kramer - 17 Jan 2006 01:16 GMT
> Half the people I know are talking about
> alternative healing.  I'm okay with considering alternative stuff, but
> that's just as premature as scheduling surgery today.

No.  Not only is it as premature as scheduleing surgery, it is in a whole
'nuther class of stupidity.  Don't listen to the alternative medicine people
if you want time with your husband.  As a matter of fact, scheduling surgery
is 10 times smarter, though premature.

> Tell me if I'm thinking right, or not.  I understand that you
> understand that this is traumatic, confusing, etc.  I know you know far
> more than I.  If I am going off into space (bearing left, banking for a
> right at Andromeda), please tell me.

Done.

> Today the doctors' office are open again, and I am faced with a phone
> book and an insurance list, trying to choose a doctor out of thin
> air...  Here's what I want, tell me if it is reasonable:
> -> A complete urological workup.
> -> A complete description of Steve's disease, and stage.

Absolutely!  You need a second opinion on that Gleason, too.

> Y'all suggested a PAP
> test (right?).  Okay, I'll try and get that done.  I wonder if we
> should get a free PSA.

I don't know anything about PAPs, though I've seen them discussed here.  I'm
not sure how useful a free PSA is now that he has been diagnosed.

> What else is there?  Testing to rule out prostatitis?  I realize he has
> cancer, but to me that makes more of a reason to identify and treat any
> other stuff going to, to clear up the picture.  Right?  Wrong?

Testing for prstatitis is not an issue.  His prostate, one way or the other,
is a thing of the past.  Whether by radiation or surgery, it's coming out or
will be destroyed in place.

> The only urologists in town are surgeons.  Steve is leaning toward
> radiation, and I put what I know if his info in a (Sloan Ketterling? I
> forget) calculator, and it gave 30 years vs. 10 years or something.
> Using radiation.  So that may very well be an option.  Maybe we should
> see a urological radiologist to get a workup?

He should see a surgeon.  He should see a rad man.  He needs to hear both
sides of the equation.  But, like it or not, he is almost certainly going to
have surgery.  The only people his age that opt for radiation are those who
feel the horse is already out of the barn.  Admittedly, his PSA and Gleason
are nearing that standard, but I do not believe they have surpassed it.  If
he comes back with clean bone and CAT scans, I beleive surgery will be his
choice.  But, that's just me (and a few hundred other people here).

Finally, it sounds like you're brain is fried and you're headed off in a
thousand directions.  And, of course, that is natural.  I think you should
take a break.  Maybe this coming weekend.  De-stress.  You have enough time
to get everything researched and planned.  But, you need a clear head.

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, 5/05, 10/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05 .08
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

juniper - 19 Jan 2006 23:59 GMT
> "steve" <zstevez@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > air...  Here's what I want, tell me if it is reasonable:
> > -> A complete urological workup.
> > -> A complete description of Steve's disease, and stage.
> Absolutely!  You need a second opinion on that Gleason, too.

We have an appointment Tuesday with Dr. Grado, but we just got the
paperwork and there is a Rx for a CAT scan in there.  There is no way
the CAT scan would be done by Tuesday (including reading, I mean).
Plus, we have a call in to Dr. Ondreyco (med oconologist) who may or
may not see us.  But if so it would be the first week of February.
Plus we have an app into Dr. Scholz in Marina del Rey, but we haven't
heard back since the email confirming they received our info. Dr.
Ondreyco would be fine, I think, although I know some will be gnashing
their teeth at the thought.

It was like pulling teeth, but Mayo sent the slides (2) to Oppenheimer.
Notice: slides.  We originally requested the paraffin blocks as well.
After I talked to Shawna at PRIME, Steve called Mayo and said the
lawyer word, that those are his property, etc.  Mayo said that the
pathologist "probably" would send the paraffin blocks "since you called
yourself" (meaning Steve), "after he takes out some samples to cover
himself." Whatever that means.  This is a bunch of bull, since they had
his signed request to send those out last week.  Argh!  Anyway, I gave
Shawna the other numbers we have (Mayo didn't even send PSA numbers or
ANY other information).  It will be next week before Oppenheimer even
receives the blocks (if he does, if one trusts Mayo, which someone
might, but not me).

Apparently Oppenheimer is going to do DNA Ploidy analysis and I don't
know what else.  It is frustrating because there are two slides.  A
left slide and a right slide.  No information about what part of the
prostate they were taken from (because this information is not known to
anyone on the planet Earth).  So I am not sure how much information we
will get, and I don't know if we will need another biopsy.

We're thinking we want to reschedule Grado after we have more
information from Oppenheimer. And maybe more information than that.  So
we're leaning toward waiting till we see Ondreyco.  Feedback requested.

Also, Grado sent a Rx for Abd/Pelvis CAT scan no contrast.  His office
said they would order MRIs or whatever before the visit.  Any
suggestions?  

We'll be at the Metro lunch on Tuesday.
I.P. Freely - 20 Jan 2006 02:08 GMT
> We have an appointment Tuesday with Dr. Grado, but we just got the
> paperwork and there is a Rx for a CAT scan in there.  There is no way
> the CAT scan would be done by Tuesday (including reading, I mean).

Have you asked the inner staff whether the scan hard copy and/or
radiologist's analysis can be ready in time for you to hand-carry copies of
one or both to your uro appt? That type of process cut at LEAST six months
from the time between my initial PSA red flag and my surgery. By the book,
my initial VA uro consult was scheduled for November; my approach got me
before 8-10 doctors in 3-4 hospitals 210 miles apart, caught a whole 'nuther
unrelated cancer in time -- we hope -- to save my life from it, and got me
"cured" ... all by October. "Could you ... ?", "Please", "How can I help you
accelerate the process?", and "I have cancer verified by biopsy" got me
nuthin' but eager cooperation, even from voices on the phone of people I'd
never met.

I.P.
juniper - 20 Jan 2006 00:06 GMT
> He should see a surgeon.  He should see a rad man.  He needs to hear both
> sides of the equation.  But, like it or not, he is almost certainly going to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> he comes back with clean bone and CAT scans, I beleive surgery will be his
> choice.  But, that's just me (and a few hundred other people here).

When you say "bone and CAT scans," are they one and the same?  Or is
the bone scan a different test?  TIA, laurel
Brian - 20 Jan 2006 00:44 GMT
>> He should see a surgeon.  He should see a rad man.  He needs to hear
>> both sides of the equation.  But, like it or not, he is almost certainly
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> When you say "bone and CAT scans," are they one and the same?  Or is the
> bone scan a different test?  TIA, laurel

Different.

"Bone scan" is an IV injection of a technetium, a radioactive gunk, that
sticks to where growth happens to be going on.  That would be Mets, in an
adult.  The X-Ray will then show bright spots where the technetium stick
the most.

There's a 4 hour wait between injection and x-ray shoot.

Mostly they scan head, spine, and long bones.

(CAT scans are to see the status of your cats, and I have none.)
juniper - 20 Jan 2006 13:19 GMT
> "Bone scan" is an IV injection of a technetium, a radioactive gunk, that
> sticks to where growth happens to be going on.  That would be Mets, in an
> adult.  The X-Ray will then show bright spots where the technetium stick
> the most.
Should he get a bone scan with these PSAs (max 26.3) + 2 positive
biopsies (3+3)(4+3)?
juniper - 20 Jan 2006 14:15 GMT
Can I read this thread on the Internet somewhere?  The only way I know
to get at it is Google Groups.  Thanks.
Steve Jordan - 20 Jan 2006 16:52 GMT
> Can I read this thread on the Internet somewhere?  The only way I know
> to get at it is Google Groups.  Thanks.
>  
Dunno what e-mail server is in use, so this answer is somewhat generic.

There should be a provision to select "subscribe" (to newsgroups). In
Thunderbird, it's on the dropdown list under "File" in the toolbar.

Select "subscribe" and some 25,000 items become available in a new
window. Search on alt.support.cancer.prostate, select it when it
appears, click on "subscribe" and that's it. The group should appear
right below the e-mail item (in T-bird, on the left side of the main
e-mail window).

Hope this works. And make sense.

Regards,

Steve J
Heather - 21 Jan 2006 05:50 GMT
Looks like Mozilla that she is using.  Juniper, phone your ISP and ask
them to set up news groups for you in whatever mailreader you are
using...I am assuming it is Thunderbird.

Once you get set up, then download the news groups as Steve suggests.

I just had to change ISP's because they stopped carrying Usenet (news
groups)....ditzbrains!!  (G)  There are free news groups, but they are
spotty at best.

HTH....Let me know if you need any more info, but reading Google
archives is a PITA!!  Tried that....and changed to DSL.

Cheers...Heather
>> Can I read this thread on the Internet somewhere?  The only way I
>> know
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Steve J
J - 20 Jan 2006 17:32 GMT
> Can I read this thread on the Internet somewhere?  The only way I know
> to get at it is Google Groups.  Thanks.

<http://www.curearchives.com/diagnosis-path-report-feedback-requested.t420-22.html>
Steve Jordan - 20 Jan 2006 17:01 GMT
>  
>> "Bone scan" is an IV injection of a technetium, a radioactive gunk, that
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> biopsies (3+3)(4+3)?
>  
See what the medics have to say. Strum writes that bone scans are
generally a waste of time and money -- unless there are other clinical
signs of metastases -- with relatively low Gleason scores. However, I
think that a Gleason 7 is right on the borderline. Expert medical advice
is needed.

Regards,

Steve J
Steve Kramer - 20 Jan 2006 22:17 GMT
> When you say "bone and CAT scans," are they one and the same?  Or is
> the bone scan a different test?  TIA, laurel

A bone scan looks for evidence of cancer on or in bones.

CAT scan look for them in soft tissue

And then there are PET, MRI and Prostascint Scans; all of which looking for
evidence of cancer in various ways.

It's all very confusing, but I suspect Steve will only have the bone and CAT
scans at this time.
juniper - 21 Jan 2006 00:02 GMT
> It's all very confusing, but I suspect Steve will only have the bone and CAT
> scans at this time.

When I called the Radiologist, she said they usually do abd/pelvic CAT
scans with contrast, and its odd that the Rx is for without contrast.
What is best for finding what we're looking for?  Thanks, Laurel
Steve Jordan - 21 Jan 2006 00:27 GMT
(snip)
> When I called the Radiologist, she said they usually do abd/pelvic CAT
> scans with contrast, and its odd that the Rx is for without contrast.
> What is best for finding what we're looking for?  Thanks, Laurel
>  
It could be as simple as a clerical error. I recommend asking the medic
(Grado?) for clarification.

Regards,

Steve J
Heather - 21 Jan 2006 05:52 GMT
>> It's all very confusing, but I suspect Steve will only have the bone
>> and CAT
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> scans with contrast, and its odd that the Rx is for without contrast.
> What is best for finding what we're looking for?  Thanks, Laurel

Hi Laurel.....my husband had contrast with both scans.  Never heard of
one without it.  Check it out with them.

Heather
juniper - 23 Jan 2006 04:31 GMT
Thanks, Heather.  It will be with contrast.  We just watched a Scholz
video (Thanks, Tom) and I think we finally got it about the stage of
Steve's cancer.  He is in Scholz's "Beyond Risk" group- he groups
according to low risk, high risk, and beyond risk.  Steve's been
telling his family that it was "minor" "tiny", and I wondered about
that.  Thought maybe he was breaking it to them gently.  But he was
shocked to see the video.  I was grateful to see everything laid out so
clearly.  (Thanks a million, Tom).  So, now our status is: waiting for
Oppenheimer 2nd opinion, just got a PAP and CAC, will schedule the CAT
scan on Monday (hopefully this week) and we will finally have some real
information.  Sigh.
 
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.