 |
 | 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 / April 2008Slow growing my a.s
The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in size. Is this considered "slow growing"? Dwight > The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in > size. > > Is this considered "slow growing"? > > Dwight If I have done the math correctly the doubling time of the diameter of a tumor is: td = ((t1-t0) * ln 2)/(2 ln (d1/d0)) where d1 is the diameter at time t1 and d0 is the diameter at t0. Assuming your cancer started with a single cell 1.5 years ago, d0 ~ 10 to 30 micrometers (most Eukaryotic animal cells), d1 ~ 1.5 cm yields a doubling time of ~ 11 to 12 days. Of course this assumes that every cell reproduces at the same rate and that the mass is spherical but it does suggest that it is pretty fast growing.  SignatureDedman -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > d1 ~ 1.5 cm Typo. d1 ~ 1 cm SignatureDedman -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in > size. > > Is this considered "slow growing"? > > Dwight The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is unknown so it doesn't help you. One way to calculate size backward is to take the PSA rise and multiply it by the PSA expression of your Gleason grade - as per Strum's numbers in "The Primer on PCa" What most studies indicate that the important factors are the rate of PSA rise (PSA velocity), the Gleason grade (below GG 3 confirmed by a specialist is a pussy cat and 4 & 5 are tigers), and PSA density (PSA per volume of gland). They are all crude indicators but that is all we have. Lud >> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in >> size. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is > unknown so it doesn't help you. You're right. > One way to calculate size backward is to take the PSA rise and > multiply it by the PSA expression of your Gleason grade - as per > Strum's numbers in "The Primer on PCa" I'm not sure if my PSA is indicative of much. .67 when taken 1.5 years ago. .8 when taken in December. > What most studies indicate that the important factors are the rate of > PSA rise (PSA velocity), the Gleason grade (below GG 3 confirmed by a > specialist is a pussy cat and 4 & 5 are tigers), and PSA density (PSA > per volume of gland). 3+4 for me. I'm trying to get my imaging date moved way up. > ... > The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is > unknown so it doesn't help you. > ... Exactly. To be precise, we can't say that the tumor was unnoticeable. All we can say is that it was unnoticed. It might have been 1 cm then too, but the physician didn't happen to feel it, or didn't know what he was feeling (not many really do unless they are specialists). Alan >>... >>The big question is how big was it when it was unnoticeable? - this is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Alan I didn't much like the doctor from back then, so I'd like to say he was incompetent, but the uro said anyone would have picked it up. I can't say for sure. Only thing I can say for sure is that people keep telling me about low PSA tumors being particularly aggressive, and that I'm really uncomfortable waiting for two months to get some imaging. > > The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in > > size. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lud You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace- of-mind (a little at least) Lud > You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within > weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace- > of-mind (a little at least) I've had many MRIs and CTs in public hospitals, with no urgency. I don't ever remember waiting more than 2-4 days, and even that wait is usually driven by my gym schedule or the wind, not the hospital. I.P. > > You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within > > weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I.P. I.P...At UCSF, John Kurhanewicz is the 3T Endorectal MRI with spectroscopy man and Katsuto Shinohara is the CDUS lead. These guys are both "artists", they are the ones you want to read your imaging data. It might take a bit longer to get on their calendars...Ron >>> You should be able to get an MRI / SI at UCSF quite quickly (within >>> weeks) - it should give you an idea of the extent and give you peace- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are both "artists", they are the ones you want to read your imaging > data. It might take a bit longer to get on their calendars...Ron Shinohara is who I'm shooting for. Just got an appointment, 5/1. Better, but I would still like earlier. I'm eating anti-oxidants out the ying yang too. Rustoleum is an anti-oxidant, ain't it? > The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in > size. > > Is this considered "slow growing"? > > Dwight All cancers are not created equal >> The tumor I have has, within 1.5 years grown from unnoticable to 1cm in >> size. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Dwight > All cancers are not created equal 4 score and 7mm ago.... |
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.