 |
 | 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 2008Contradictory Pathology Reports
Hi! I wonder if any of you have this experience. Also, what do think is the best course to get a proper diognosis? After my biopsy, the pathology report came back with an indication of cancer giving me a GS of 6, with a PSA of 7.5 and staging of T1c. While reading "Surviving Prostate Cancer" by Dr. Patrick Walsh, it suggested that under my circumstances, a second pathology report should be requested from a different facility. I did this and guess what? The second report indicates atypical (inconclusive). So now my operation has been canceled and I am back to square one with another biopsy this coming Thursday. Any suggestions? I would appreciate it. How many pathology reports do we need to get it "right"? Thanks! Ernie Adsett > Hi! > I wonder if any of you have this experience. Also, what do think is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ernie Adsett Ernie: It would be helpful to have more biopsy information to assist in offering opinions. How many needle cores were taken in the biopsy, how many were read, how many cores were + for cancer, what amount of each core was positive for cancer, how close to the margin of each core was cancer found, was perineural invasion seen, and any other details from the pathologist report. If you do not have that report, obtain it before your next decision.. I guess that with a second opinion of "inconclusive" that means you had a small number/amount/location or cores. I would not hazard an opinion on a guess. PSA pattern would also be helpful. Since you were/are cT1 that means unremarkable DRE, thus found by psa pattern, I assume. Congratulations on reading the Walsh book,and following that advice. Usually, with divergent first and second opinions, a third opinion is recommended, though another biopsy could also help settle your mind. This time the best possible pathology reader would be in your interest, and members here can help you locate such a service, if necessary. On Jan 14, 2:45 pm, tarhoos...@carolina.rr.com wrote: > > Hi! > > I wonder if any of you have this experience. Also, what do think is [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I appreciate very much the quick response and the listing of top notch pathology labs given. Here's the results from the first report. I don't have the second report other than it was one core and they stated it was atypical. 8 cores taken/ only 1 showing cancer Core A: core tissue with focal atypical glands. Those atypical glands have a slightly enlarged nuclei. Focal perineural invasion. High molecular cytokeratin is negative. right apex: - adenocarcinoma/ Gleason 3+3=6/10. tumour: approx 3% of the needle core tissue. Core B-H: benign prostate tissue. Also, PSA 2 years ago: 3.5/ Now: 7.5 Unremarkable DRE Thanks so much! Ernie On Jan 14, 2:45 pm, tarhoos...@carolina.rr.com wrote: Here's the results from the first report. I don't have the second report other than it was one core and they stated it was atypical. 8 cores taken/ only 1 showing cancer Core A: core tissue with focal atypical glands. Those atypical glands have a slightly enlarged nuclei. Focal perineural invasion. High molecular cytokeratin is negative. right apex: - adenocarcinoma/ Gleason 3+3=6/10. tumour: approx 3% of the needle core tissue. Core B-H: benign prostate tissue. Also, PSA 2 years ago: 3.5/ Now: 7.5 Unremarkable DRE ----------------- It is unfortunate that your doc stopped at eight cores. I didn't think anyone did less than twelve nowadays. 3% of a needle sure isn't much, is it? Maybe it is hard to determine cancer, especially from multiple samples. On January 14, Ernie wrote: (snip re: inconsistent pathology reports) The reliable reading of pathology specimens is highly dependent upon the skill of the individual pathologist. I recommend having the specimens reviewed by an expert in PCa pathology. Here is a list. They can advise on shipping procedures: Bostwick Laboratories [800] 214-6628 Dianon Laboratories [800] 328-2666 (select 5 for client services) Jon Epstein (Hopkins) [410] 955-5043 or [410] 955-2162 David Grignon (Michigan) [313] 745-2520 Jon Oppenheimer (Tennessee) [888] 868-7522 UroCor, Inc. [800] 411-1839 Having a reliable path reading is vital. This, rather than a second biopsy procedure, might be what Walsh refers to. Regards, Steve J > Hi! > I wonder if any of you have this experience. Also, what do think is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Any suggestions? I would appreciate it. How many pathology reports > do we need to get it "right"? Personally, I think I would trust a conclusive report over an inconclusive one. But, if the lab was one of the premier labs that Steve Jordan oftens posts here, then I'd say you are in a bind. I can understand how a lab can be confused between Gleason 6 and 7, but no about how they can be confused between cancer and healthy cells. But, then, I've never looked into a microscope; just seen pictures.  SignaturePSA 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 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > Personally, I think I would trust a conclusive report over an inconclusive > one. Applied to the facts of this case, Kramer says he rather trusts a report that may be wrong than a report that says we can't come to a conclusion because that conclusion is likely to be wrong. > I can understand how a lab can > be confused between Gleason 6 and 7, but no about how they can be confused > between cancer and healthy cells. What do you think "atypical" means? > Hi! > I wonder if any of you have this experience. Also, what do think is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ernie Adsett You've read I assume what Walsh says about the qualification "atypical", i.e. for most patients the next step is a repeat biopsy but according to Epsein, that's of questionable value. His advice is to get a second opinion. If you apply Walsh' advice to your case, that would mean asking a third opinion, rather than go through a new biopsy. On Jan 14, 11:31 am, ErnieA <ernieadsett...@gmail.com> wrote...snip... > The second report indicates atypical (inconclusive). Hi Ernie...The most common kind of prostate cancer is adenocarcinoma. Often, during pathological examination of prostate biopsy specimens, the term "atypical" is used to indicate that the cancerous cells are not adenocarcinoma, but rather other, less common variants such as small cell, signet, etc. Check with the author of the report and see what his intended meaning of "atypical" was. Atypical prostatic tumors need to be treated in ways very different from a normal prostatic adenocarcinoma...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.