Many times a newly diagnosed (aka- non politically correct 'newbie') may post their info and described status from there doc and/or partial results or better descript
ive informations. Myself bothered by the number of docs whom might mislead the patient as to this 'it is contained' slogan like cavalierly stated unto the patients to often hear, especially when they have high stats that nomograms, partin tables would show there is huge doubt about
it being fully contained. (exceptions always exist too) Supposedly contained is much better verbage to use.
Bothers me alot because it is such a dis-service to the reality of risky stats patients and putting total disclosures or truth behind perhaps making a sale in effect. Same thing applys to scanning methods, especially the old ct and bone scans as supposedly being totally definitive (in the past many patients mislead as to how accurate these are). Same thing applies to biopsies, patients lead to believe the average pathologist is as good as the real experts, or whatever is found is exactly what you are dealing with (wrong), because of many variables, including missed biopsy areas (could harbor different Gleason grades, even possible variant different type of PCa even though that is more rare). Let's add that on biopsies hardly ever mentioned to patients that a multitude of additional specialized testings on pathology exist and can help define your genetic issues and some targetted therapies that are already known are useful. Things like simple 'AR' receptor expression (Chromagrainin stains on slides) can reveal your riskiness or lack of success using androgen drugs and such. DNA ploidy testings can reveal the status of your PCa, 3-levels, diploid status is closest to normal cell structures and best to be found with, the others demonstrate broken DNA chains and chaos as to what your cells are like.
So, there is alot to grasp on PCa issues and the controversies never cease and have even got worse regarding screenings, and psa thresholds or values. Very perplexing to even the guys whom have been around long time gleaning information for years and years. Support is a great thing and its value is not measureable, but also truths and disclosures should be a priority to patients. So, should we expose some realities and truths on PCa or bypass such? I was treated back in 2002 with high risky stats, and was even lied to in getting my 8 opinions, it was educational and set a fire under me as to what are the realities and truths vs. salemanship or sugar coatings. I was glad to hear from some veterans even on their laypersons opinions to help fire me up to find more info and question plenty, sure helped me see what 'practicing medicine' actually means. One of the new guys the other day posted, I did try to get you thinking about the 'contained' statement, no I don't know for a fact whether it is or isn't, but was directing you to nomograms and links. I bet your doc never ran a nomogram, you could ask him what is a nomogram at next visit (play dumb), after his reply ask why didn't you do one and reveal the information to me???? I would like to be the fly on the wall, thereafter.