3/3 3/4 in median. Second reading ordered.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Steve tew - 06 Aug 2007 04:13 GMT

The biopsy showed the abnormal cells in the median, near the middle of the
prostate. My doctor said that is really unusual and ordered a second
reading from another pathology team.

He didn't say it was bad, just very unusual. Since the options for me look
like the radical prostatectomy with the da Vinci® Prostatectomy method, the
possible negative ramifications sort of escape me... that is, of the cancer
being smack in the middle of the thing rather than around the center.

What do you make of it?

Thanks,
Steve

Reply to this Message

chasjac too - 06 Aug 2007 00:37 GMT

Hello, Steve:

First of all, I'm sorry to hear about your cancer. It sounds as though
you're an informed person with a good attitude, making the best of a crappy
situation.

Sometimes the breaks fall our way -- given that we have cancer, of course!
My clinical Gleason score was 7(3+4), but when the final pathology report
came back, they had scaled the Gleason back to 6, with a few wilder
tertiary cells. Doesn't happen very often that the Gleason score goes
down, but it does happen once in a while.

So, I'd say enjoy the fact that it appears to be going your way. And please
keep us posted on how it all turns out.

All the best,

charlie

Signature

6/2006 PSA 5.2
DRE suspicious
7/2006 Biopsy
2 of 10 positive
Gleason 7(3+4)
11/2006 LRP
Clear margins
1/2007 PSA < 0.01
3/2007 PSA < 0.01
6/2007 PSA < 0.01
so far, so good

Reply to this Message

Steve tew - 06 Aug 2007 13:56 GMT

Thanks Charlie. I should have the final path reading this week.

Steve

> Hello, Steve:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> charlie

Reply to this Message

chasjac - 06 Aug 2007 15:07 GMT

On Aug 6, 8:56 am, "Steve tew" <notme403(removethis)@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Charlie. I should have the final path reading this week.
>
> Steve

Oops, my bad. The final pathology report I was writing about was the
post-op pathology report.

Like you, I had two pathology reports before my surgery, one by the
pathologist my local uro uses, and the second by the folks at Johns
Hopkins -- that was at the insistence of my surgein there. The first
one found cancer in one of ten cores, with a Gleason score of 7(4+3).
The second one done at JH found cancer in two of ten cores, with a
Gleason of 7(3+4). Not really a big change when compared with some of
the variation in pre-op athology reports I've heard or read about on
this NG and elsewhere.

The post-op pathology was the one with a Gleason of 6. They noted a
few wilder cells; presumably that was the lucky (good or bad?) hit by
the biopsy needle.

--charlie

Reply to this Message