2 different urologists told him he was fine ( he may be) But I pushed for an MRI- It came back with a suspicious mass... Biopsy is tomorrow. The mass is in an area of the prostate that is not typically reached by biopsy or felt by DRE. So having the MRI is crucial for proper diagnostics in my husbands case.
After that scary MRI report, he ends up only having 1 out of 15 cores showing less than 15% of gleason 6 !? Does anyone know how accurate these biopsies are?
I've been laying low in this forum for a while. But I must jump in and point out that most of the replies so far assume that the patient actually has only a small volume of G6.
That is not necessarily the case. MRI's can be misleading, and biopsies can miss tumors entirely.
While AS may be appropriate in this case, I propose that the true nature of this case is at this point not certain.
In my case, the biopsy missed the primary tumor, located at the base where it "not typically reached by biopsy or DRE". My urologist ignored my steadily rising PSA as well as my family history. The MRI indicated that the tumor was contained within the prostate. All of that was wrong. It meant absolutely nothing
to the doctors involved. But it made a world of difference to me.
Again, while AS may be appropriate, please allow me to present an alternative possibility. That is that the MRI was close. The biopsy was wa-a-ay off base. The tumors are much more pervasive and of higher grade than this initial stab have indicated. Waiting a year or so will allow it to grow rapidly. It happens. It happened to me.
Just another point to consider. I realize the severity of overtreatment at this early stage.