pls explain this info

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

Regular Member

Date Joined Jun 2008
Total Posts : 440
   Posted 7/7/2009 8:20 PM (GMT -6)   
I dont understand what they are trying to say
will be 50 years old this year ( 2009 )
Uro said enlarged prostate 
DRE Negitive
Psa  2003- .55
     2007 - .99
     2008 -  1.01
watchfull worrier , lol

Regular Member

Date Joined Apr 2009
Total Posts : 133
   Posted 7/7/2009 8:36 PM (GMT -6)   
One way to look at this information is that by decreasing the size of the gland the cancerous cells were easier to detect. In other words they were more concentrated and statistically easier to find and hence get a diagnosis. We all know that a biopsy can miss PCa.
Age 55, two teens, very fit cyclist (avg 2000+ miles per year) and weight, diet, etc. consistent with good habits. Stressful job as attorney; very supporting wife who is helping me through every stage of this war.
2006 PSA - 1.5
2007 PSA - 2.3
2008 PSA - 5.3 (18 mos.)
2009 Jan. 20 - Biopsy 12 samples
        Feb 3 Dx 2/12 samples positive, low volume  (5% and 7-10%)
Gleason 3+4, later downgraded by second opinion at Johns-Hopkins to 3+3, but "it's still PCa" as my Doc said.
Laproscopic surgery April 9,  University of KY Medical Center, Lexington, 3 days in hospital, catheter removal April 21.
Pathology: clear margins, no cancer in prostate: told that this is very rare and Doc has only seen it in 3 out of over 1400 cases; I rearched the concept of "vanishing cancer" and found a tumor classification of tP0 and asked Doc if it applied to me. He said that it was unlikely because if a pathologist had done a much more detailed analysis of the tissue, he would likely find more foci somewhere, and biopsy found "needle in the haystack as opposed to the tip of the iceberg"; Nevertheless, it is a blessing;
Regardless of the science, my family says "miracle."
Now working w/ post-surgery issues....

Veteran Member

Date Joined Apr 2009
Total Posts : 990
   Posted 7/8/2009 9:38 AM (GMT -6)   
This is about a re-analysis of a previous cancer prevention study.

In the original study, healthy men took the drug finasteride for seven years. These men had 25% fewer cases of PC when compared to men who took a placebo. BUT the men taking finasteride who were diagnosed with PC were more likely to have high-grade PC when compared to the men in the placebo group who were diagnosed with cancer. This raised a serious concern that, while taking finasteride might reduce a man’s chances of getting PC, it increased the chance that if a man taking finasteride did get cancer, it would be more likely to be high-grade.

The follow-up study reported here concluded that finasteride made high-grade cancer easier to diagnose because it shrank the prostate and this made PSA tests more accurate. Thus it was not that the men taking finasteride had more high-grade cancer but that their high-grade cancers were more likely to be diagnosed compared to high-grade cancers in men not taking finasteride.
Age at diagnosis 66, PSA 5.5
Biopsy 12/08 12 cores, 8 positive
Gleason 3+4=7
CAT scan, Bone scan 1/09 both negative.

Robotic surgery 03/03/09 Catheter Out 03/08/09
Pathology: Lymph nodes & Seminal vesicles negative
Margins positive, Capsular penetration extensive Gleason 4+3=7
6 weeks: 1 pad/day, 1 pad/night -- mostly dry at night.
10 weeks: no pad at night -- slight leakage day/1 pad.
3 mo. PSA 0.0

John T
Veteran Member

Date Joined Nov 2008
Total Posts : 4237
   Posted 7/8/2009 11:45 AM (GMT -6)   

Geezer is exactly correct in his analysis.


New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
Forum Information
Currently it is Sunday, July 22, 2018 11:48 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 2,984,199 posts in 327,195 threads.
View Active Threads

Who's Online
This forum has 161980 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, PSA5000.
597 Guest(s), 8 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
Ides, ppm guy, Cmburks, hrpufnstuf, LLLLX, borborygmi, moleUC, huneri