> not sampled by a TRUS-biopsy. For follow-up "biopsy" after a negative
> initial biopsy, if PSA is elevated, a color doppler, which can see the
> entire prostate, might be a preferred route.. Alternately, a
> trans-perineal biopsy can sample these other prostatic areas...ron
Hi David...See my responses within your post...Best wishes and good
health, Ron
> Is is really necessary to look hard to find PCa by using color doppler or a
> trans-perineal biopsy?
>
> It seems to me that if the PCa is so hard to detect, then it would be ok to
> watch it for awhile until (and if) it becomes detectable by a TRUS-biopsy.
Just like treatment selection, many aspects of detection come down to
personal choice. Both in the literature, as well as on lists like
this, I've read of men who had multiple biopsies (I think about 6 is
the most I've seen),with no evidence of cancer, but a continually
rising PSA. Typically on the 3rd or 4th biopsy, PCa is Dx'd. Such
cancers typically start in the transition zone and won't be detected by
standard TRUS biopsy until they grow large enough to have tumors in the
region sampled by the standard TRUS biopsy. While TZ PCa is often less
aggresive and slow-growing, why give the bastard a head-start, why let
it grow in volume and mutate to a more aggresive form (higher GS)? But
again, I recognize and respect the element of personal choice here.
> Its kind of the same argument against going out of your way to get an
> ultrasensative PSA test after surgery that can resolve to .01. What are you
> going to do if you get a reading of .03- nothing, test again after 3 months.
Well, as many PCa-focused docs have pointed out, it gives you a heads
up that something may be happening. Consequently, you have more time
to overcome the initial shock of recurrence and start planning.
Personally, for me, if I were to recur, I'd rather have a string of PSa
increases from 0.01 to 0.10 where I can 1) confirm the rising pattern,
2) get past the initial emotional trauma, 3) have enough measurements
to estimate a doubling time and 3) plan a course of action, so that I
could initiate action around PSA=0.2, rather than begin doing all of
that around PSA=0.1 and have to wait longer to start the fight; earlier
is always better. Finally, there have been studies that suggest that
if your PSA remains below 0.01 for 3 years or so, you're less likely to
recur (hope they're true). So, at least for me, there is also the
element of the test serving as a prognostic indicator (best case) or an
emotional crutch (worst case). But again, I recognize the element of
personal choice here too..
> David
> Is is really necessary to look hard to find PCa by using color doppler or
> a trans-perineal biopsy?
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> David
Your argument would be more compelling if the cancer would go away, like
a small virus. Some want to know as early as possible, since early detection
and removal would put you on a better course for a cure.

Signature
JK Sinrod
www.SinrodStudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
Steve Jordan - 25 Nov 2006 22:36 GMT
On November 25, JK Sinrod wrote:
>
(snip)
>> Its kind of the same argument against going out of your way to get an
>> ultrasensative PSA test after surgery that can resolve to .01. What are
>> you going to do if you get a reading of .03- nothing, test again after 3
>> months.
>>
>>
JK replied:
>> Your argument would be more compelling if the cancer would go away, like
>> a small virus. Some want to know as early as possible, since early detection
>> and removal would put you on a better course for a cure.
>>
Exactly.
It's essentially an early-warning procedure. Using the ultrasensitive
procedure, one can observe very small changes (I call them "twitches")
in PSA and track where they're going. Rather than getting an unpleasant
surprise when a quarterly PSA result moves from 0.1 to 0.2 to 0.3, one
will know before it reaches 0.1 that something is going on. It's a heads-up.
Some say that the U/S test should not be used because it unnecessarily
makes folks nervous. I say that that's a very poor reason to forego a
useful test. We're all nervous; I don't care how much some might deny it.
Regards,
Steve J
"There is NOWHERE in oncology where waiting for the tumor cell
population to increase (and to mutate) is in the better interests of the
patient."
--Stephen B. Strum, MD