On Oct 2, 10:56 am, "Joan  and  her butterflydogs"
<butterfly...@verizon.net> wrote:

Joan, if I were him, I'd try to contact  the JHU urology department
www.urology.jhu.edu and see if your hubby can qualify for the study
they
are doing in PCa marker (EPCA-2) for cancer detection. They claim
93% success in identifying PCa, much more accurate than biopsy or PSA.
(also look into HCA-2 research, semen-based PCa marker).

On Oct 2, 11:56 am, "Joan  and  her butterflydogs"
<butterfly...@verizon.net> wrote:

One of the big controversies in prostate cancer treatment is, how
many patients really need to get treatment?  Some evidence of
cancer appears in many men who do not have "clinically significant"
cancer, which I believe means that their cancer does not (at least
not yet), pose a threat to their health.

Your husband may fall into the category of men with some
evidence of cancer but not clinically significant.

I think your husband's doctors have the right idea.  Don't
treat anything that doesn't need treatment, but keep watching
it so you catch it early if it looks like it does need treatment.

It's possible that your husband could live 5 or 10 years or
longer and still not have enough cancer to need treatment, and
if he does, there might be better treatments available then.

However, I'm not a doctor.  If your husband is seeing a Hopkins
urologist, he's probably getting very superior medical advice.

I'll also add that I think cmrdata's suggestion about joining
the EPCA-2 study at Hopkins is a good one.  You will learn more
about your husband's actual condition, he will be monitored
closely with many tests, and he will be contributing to the
development of a new technique which may benefit everyone, but
especially men like your husband whose medical condition is
not clearly defined by current testing techniques.

Best of luck.

   Alan

Joan and her butterflydogs wrote:

In some cases, a free PSA test can distinguish between cases which need
repeated biopsies and those that don't.  Ask you huband's urologists
about that.

On October 2, Joan and her butterflydogs all wrote:

Were the specimens studied by Jon Epstein at Johns Hopkins? He is a
world-class expert.

Last I heard, at least 12 biopsy specimens was considered acceptable.

Good. I hope that Dr. Epstein will see them. BTW, his telephone numbers
are [410] 955-5043 or [410] 955-2162.

I have to wonder what, exactly, he means by "beginning lesions."

Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (PIN), maybe?

Is this uro well-experienced in prostate cancer (PCa)? If not, seek one
who is.

A list of some experts is linked at the following site of the Prostate
Cancer Research Institute (PCRI):
http://prostate-cancer.org/resource/find-a-physician.html

The PCRI site is the source of encyclopedic and reliable information on PCa.

For example, much information on PIN can be found there.

Also of interest is the section "Undiagnosed."

I recommend purchase and study of the premier text on PCa, _A Primer on
Prostate Cancer_ 2nd ed., subtitled "The Empowered Patient's Guide" by
medical oncologist and PCa specialist Stephen B. Strum, MD and PCa
warrior Donna Pogliano. It is available from the PCRI website and the
like, as well as Amazon (30+ five-star reviews), Barnes & Noble, and
bookstores. A lifesaver. I know.

What is the size of his prostate? Every prostate gland expresses PSA. To
determine the benign amount of PSA one simply multiplies size by 0.066.
The formula is size x 0.066 = benign PSA. Anything in excess of the
result requires investigation. And the *least* likely explanation is PCa.

Lastly, I very strongly recommend that the complete file (chart) be
obtained. The patient has a legal right to it. It can prove to be
invaluable.

Regards,

Steve J

"'MD' does not mean 'Medical Deity.'"
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD

Gentlemen,

thank you all for your suggestions ! I have forwarded them to my husband's
email.

Thank goodness for news groups and all you people to share your experiences
and advice.

Much appreciated.

Actually we live in new York State, the Md chose to send ( biopsies )  them
to John Hopkins for a second opinion. I am not sure why he chose to send
them there.

again, sincere thanks

Joan