 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / January 2008Question re: Prostate Volume
Was wondering what amount (in cc) is considered large or small "prostate volume"? Thanks, Sy > Was wondering what amount (in cc) is considered large or small > "prostate volume"? > > Thanks, > > Sy Sy...In one study comparing RP specimens, the mean prostate weight was found to be 53 gm (range: 16-132 gm). The density of human tissue (mostly water) is generally assumed to be 1.0, hence 53 gm = 53 cc. Other studies estimating prostate volume based on TRUS biopsy findings are inherently less accurate...ron The average prostate size of a young man is approximately 20gram and can be as large as approximately 150grams. The numbers would be similar if you want it in CCs. Estimated based upon density of water. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html I Ron, I'm a bit unclear re: the measurement My biopsy report shows my prostate volume as being 28 cc. Not sure what to make of that. Sy n article <a16a042d-f6ee-4088-a24a-d5df5239c7d0@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, > > Was wondering what amount (in cc) is considered large or small > > "prostate volume"? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Other studies estimating prostate volume based on TRUS biopsy findings > are inherently less accurate...ron > I > Ron, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sy Sy...The measurement was made by weighing whole prostates after removal by RP. 28 cc sounds like it would be somewhat on the small side. I would guess that smaller is better in this case. Both surgeons and radiation oncologists prefer smaller prostates for several reasons, also urinary problems are minimized...ron >> I >> Ron, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >surgeons and radiation oncologists prefer smaller prostates for >several reasons, also urinary problems are minimized...ron Though not forgetting the implications for PSA density, ron, which for a given PSA value is higher for a smaller prostate. Your right rosbif, -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Your right rosbif, Because Sy has chosen active surveillance the larger the prostate the more room a cancer tumor has to float around before it is forced out of the prostate so to speak. PSA Density is determined by dividing the volume into the psa. Epsteins model prefers a density of under 0.1. Royal Marsden of London 's model uses 0.15 and Dr. Roemeling of the European Urology study used 0.2ng/ml/cc as criteria for active surveillance. However what one has to look at is the median age of the participants and more importantly is the survival time. Most seem to suggest that if one only expects to live approximately 10 years then a more liberal approach is sufficent, however if one expects to live much longer assuming the roof doesn't fall on your head the more conservative approach such as Epsteins criteria would be more appropriate. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Sorry about all the repeat post. I find for what ever reason when I hit the TAB key, the (Submit Message) link is highlighted and then of course when I hit the return button while typing the post is sent. Just realized this is happening and will watch it in the future. Maybe safire can explain why the Tab key highlights the submit button. There are plenty of areas that I'm not as versed in as safire is. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] Ron, Where you say "larger the prostate the > more room a cancer tumor has to float around before it is forced out of > the prostate so to speak" So if I understand you correctly are you saying that a smaller prostate volume would allow for less room to "float around" hence it is more likely to be "squeezed" out of the prostate, so to speak? Thanks, Sy In article <931a89687f5116b1636e623e817081b3@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com>, > Your right rosbif, > Because Sy has chosen active surveillance the larger the prostate the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ > More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html > [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]] [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > volume would allow for less room to "float around" hence it is more > likely to be "squeezed" out of the prostate, so to speak? I wonder whether any study exists that supports the position that the risk of metastasis is negatively correlated to prostate size. > Thanks, > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ >> More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Sy, Lighten up a little. I'm assuming you can figure out from my poor analogy that a given tumor growing exponentially is more likely to penetrate the soft fatty tissue of the prostate capsule sooner if it is confined in a smaller space than a larger one.I only type two fingers and one is not very functional. It does take a bit for me to type as it is. If you really want to know the process of tumor evolution you will have to Google it. There are a number of studies that has determined that large tumor volumes (PSA Density)amongst other markers can have a negative impact on success of any primary treatment. It seems that PSA doubling probably has the greatest impact on treatment failure. As far as safires question below, he might want to read this and critique it for me as I'm sure he will. http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/? vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confI D=46&index=y&abstractID=20535 Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html > As far as safires question below, he might want to read this and critique > it for me as I'm sure he will. > http://www.asco.org/portal/site/ASCO/menuitem.34d60f5624ba07fd506fe310ee37a01d/? vgnextoid=76f8201eb61a7010VgnVCM100000ed730ad1RCRD&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=46&index=y&abstractID=20535 Learn how to respond to newsgroups. Learn the benefits of tinyurl. Sy's question was about your assertion that the smaller the prostate is, the greater the risk of metastasis. The study you refer to doesn't support that at all. It deals with tumor volume. Tumors and prostates are different things. Do you understand? > Ron S. > > -- > Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ > More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Sy, Lighten up a little. I'm assuming you can figure out from my poor analogy that a given tumor growing exponentially is more likely to penetrate the soft fatty tissue of the prostate capsule sooner if it is confined in a smaller space than a larger one.I only type two fingers and one is not very functional. It does take a bit for me to type as it is. If you really want to know the process of tumor evolution you will have to Google it. There are a number of studies that has determined that large tumor volumes (PSA Density)amongst other markers can have a negative impact on success of any primary treatment. It seems that PSA doubling probably has the greatest impact on treatment failure. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Wrong again safire. If you would learn to read better we wouldn't have all these unnecessary exchanges. He was asking about my contention that a smaller prostate volume would provide less room for a cancer tumor to grow before it eventually penetrated the capsule. We were discussing PSA density not the size of the prostate alone. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html > He was asking about my contention that a > smaller prostate volume would provide less room for a cancer tumor to grow > before it eventually penetrated the capsule. We were discussing PSA density > not the size of the prostate alone. The article that you provided a link to doesn't discuss PSA density or or prostate volume as a predictor of metastasis. It discusses tumor volume only. Nothing in the article supports your assertion. Let's keep this newsgroup free of false claims by amateurs. > Ron S. > > -- > Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ > More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Sy, Remember, I am not an expert by any means. I'm sure others will testify to that. But as an example, my urologist estimated my prostate during the exam to be about 40grams. His Lab Processing unit estimated it to be 59ccs. After my surgery, the path report measured and weighed it with results of 6X5.5X5cm; weight:65.5 grams. Largest cancer dimension was 1.7cm with multifocal of cancer; more than one. Cancer volume was 1.14cc. I had one core positive of cancer. However, my urologist took a ten core sample but only sent 6 cores to Bostwick Lab. Never got an answer as to what happened to the 4 other cores. Might have had more positive cores had he sent them all. I assume your urologist used ultrasound and DRE to estimate your prostate volume. There is no way to be that accurate unless it's removed and measured in the lab. Just remember that most of the numbers they come up with are best estimates with a lot of variations based upon the patients physical anatomy and the skill of the medical professional. So keep that in mind when using your numbers. Like some say, it's a crap shoot and we are just playing the odds. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html Sy, Remember, I am not an expert by any means. I'm sure others will testify to that. But as an example, my urologist estimated my prostate during the exam to be about 40grams. His Lab Processing unit estimated it to be 59ccs. After my surgery, the path report measured and weighed it with results of 6X5.5X5cm; weight:65.5 grams. Largest cancer dimension was 1.7cm with multifocal of cancer; more than one. Cancer volume was 1.14cc. I had one core positive of cancer. However, my urologist took a ten core sample but only sent 6 cores to Bostwick Lab. Never got an answer as to what happened to the 4 other cores. Might have had more positive cores had he sent them all. I assume your urologist used ultrasound and DRE to estimate your prostate volume. There is no way to be that accurate unless it's removed and measured in the lab. Just remember that most of the numbers they come up with are best estimates with a lot of variations based upon the patients physical anatomy and the skill of the medical professional. So keep that in mind when using your numbers. Like some say, it's a crap shoot and we are just playing the odds. Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html >I >Ron, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Sy My understanding - don't quote me!- is that the prostate is at its smallest just post-puberty and grows in size as we get older, so any definitive answer would be in the form of an age/size chart. I suppose there's also a drought of data since no one is interested in prostate size for healthy folk and we with our BHP and cancer often have distorted or swollen ones. I can tell you that mine was estimated prior to LRP and after an MRI at 32ccs and I'd been told before all of this after a dextrous DRE that is was slightly oversize. So perhaps yours is the model prostate? >n article ><a16a042d-f6ee-4088-a24a-d5df5239c7d0@c23g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> Other studies estimating prostate volume based on TRUS biopsy findings >> are inherently less accurate...ron |
Reply to this Message |
 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.