Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm now 57. As someone who had a PSA Test and the a biopsy which was positive over a year ago based on a rising PSA, and definitely would have had my prostate removed, risking loss of control of my bladder and bowels as a result had someone not referred me to the "Invasion of The Body Snatchers" book which was published last year before I made a decision on my treatment options, and instead opted for "Active Surveillance". Urologists are quick on the draw to recommend surgury because that's what they do.
My PSA was 4.34 just before my invasive biopsy that took samples from 12 cores. 5 showed some presence of cancer. Although it was completely confined to the prostate, I was assigned a Gleason Score of 3+3 in my left lobe and 3+4 in my right. So far I've had 4 PSA Tests since then, and none of them have matched or exceeded that number. I recently had an extremely thorough DRE, and there was nothing hard that would indicate cancer, and although there was some noticeable difference in size of the lobes, my urologist also said that alone would not confirm the presence of any tumor either. Hopefully I will never have to undergo treatments, but will as a last resort if there is evidence of more aggressiveness in the cancer.
I have done a lot of research online and offline, and have attended the monthly meetings of the local support group for those with Prostate Cancer: Welcome To IPCSG
I have also altered my diet, and made some other adjustments because of my research results.
This was posted on the blog that the authors of the "Snatchers" book maintain in regard to PSA testing:
These were the same group of idiots who a couple years ago wanted to change the guidelines for testing for breast cancer. There was such a backlash. I can't believe they are that stupid again.
When early detection is key for successful treatment a minimally invasive blood test is reasonable and prudent for early detection. The quicker the cancer is detected the better the outcome and often easier on the patient.
I think their guidelines are they are proposing is beyond stupid and regressive.
I think there needs to be a better test. But there have been many lives saved due to early detection.
I don't think you are correct about the group making the recommendations. They are basing their recommendations on published scientific data rather than opinion, tradition or emotion. Using scientific evidence is the best way we have to evaluate a medical treatment or policy.
The idea of early detection has been a bit oversold to the public in my opinion. It seems to make sense on the surface but sometimes the cancer will spread rapidly despite early detection and some cancers will never be aggressive. We just don't know that before hand.
If the treatment had minimal side effects the entire question would be less relevent. However, the treatment can result in infection, incontinence, impotence, and death. None of these are trivial.
The group should be commended for raising awareness of the complexities of this issue.
I do agree that a better test that would detect cancer that would be aggressive and life threatening would be welcomed.
I don't think you are correct about the group making the recommendations. They are basing their recommendations on published scientific data rather than opinion, tradition or emotion. Using scientific evidence is the best way we have to evaluate a medical treatment or policy.
The idea of early detection has been a bit oversold to the public in my opinion. It seems to make sense on the surface but sometimes the cancer will spread rapidly despite early detection and some cancers will never be aggressive. We just don't know that before hand.
If the treatment had minimal side effects the entire question would be less relevent. However, the treatment can result in infection, incontinence, impotence, and death. None of these are trivial.
The group should be commended for raising awareness of the complexities of this issue.
I do agree that a better test that would detect cancer that would be aggressive and life threatening would be welcomed.
A bit oversold? Really? cancer is a whole lot easier to treat if it is caught before it has spread to other parts of the body. There are only two types of cancer that really have a predictable pattern of spread. Most cancer start in on spot and jump to another organ... Patient 1 has cancer that starts in the prostate it jumps to the liver; where patient 2 has same cancer is jumps to lungs instead of liver. No wouldn't it be far better to catch the cancer before it spreads. Now there is only one part that needs attention instead of multiple locations of the cancer. Treatment is far easier, less invasive and long term.
And yes they were the same monkeys who suggested reduced breast cancer screanings two years ago. Again if the cancer is caught early enough they only have to worry about one organ, instead of lungs and lymph nodes and other areas of spread.
The idea of early detection has been a bit oversold to the public in my opinion. It seems to make sense on the surface but sometimes the cancer will spread rapidly despite early detection and some cancers will never be aggressive. We just don't know that before hand.
If the treatment had minimal side effects the entire question would be less relevent. However, the treatment can result in infection, incontinence, impotence, and death. None of these are trivial.
Yes. Treatment is irreversible.
Some people do not want to take a chance no matter what, but with that approach, unknowingly endanger themselves. This is not to say that every man will suffer every side effect, but it is a daunting list of possibilities.
The chance of infection from a biopsy was definitely down-played by the urologist we spoke with, which infuriated me when I looked up the life-threatening complications associated with prostate biopsies.
As someone who once had a false positive from a mammogram, I respect medical professionals but retain the notion that they are human beings and not infallible.
Catching cancer early is very important, but defining prostate cancer (and how fast-growing it is) seems to be elusive. Differentiated cells in the prostate are not necessarily an immediate death sentence, but the situation is difficult to ignore.
OTOH the tricky part is that all this testing can be profitable, but the patient does not always benefit.
And with biopsies, whether prostate, breast or other, there is always the possibility of seeding or needle tracking which is rarely discussed doctor to patient. Dislodging cancer cells and dragging them through the needle track or along the surgical incision is possible. Basically spreading cancer cells.
My DH was just diagnosed with PC. It was found as a result of a PSA test. He has had PSA tests as part of the annual physical since he was about 55. At age 62 his PSA was around 4.2 and the Primary Doc suggested that a prostrate biopsy be performed, Ten samples were taken with no cancer found. At age 63 his PSA went to 5, the Primary again recommended seeing a Urologist but DH chose to ignore that advice. Now at age 64 PSA went to 9.9 and he did see a Urologist. Of the 20 samples taken, 7 had a Gleason score of 3+4 and only 2 of the remaining 12 were unremarkable.
Urologist suggested 2 different treatments, radiology or surgery. Either of these treatment would provide a successful cure, each with its pros and cons. DH is choosing radiology.
Bottom line is that if he had not had annual PSA tests, odds are that the cancer would only have been found after it metastized to another organ.
My DH was just diagnosed with PC. It was found as a result of a PSA test. He has had PSA tests as part of the annual physical since he was about 55. At age 62 his PSA was around 4.2 and the Primary Doc suggested that a prostrate biopsy be performed, Ten samples were taken with no cancer found. At age 63 his PSA went to 5, the Primary again recommended seeing a Urologist but DH chose to ignore that advice. Now at age 64 PSA went to 9.9 and he did see a Urologist. Of the 20 samples taken, 7 had a Gleason score of 3+4 and only 2 of the remaining 12 were unremarkable.
Urologist suggested 2 different treatments, radiology or surgery. Either of these treatment would provide a successful cure, each with its pros and cons. DH is choosing radiology.
Bottom line is that if he had not had annual PSA tests, odds are that the cancer would only have been found after it metastized to another organ.
This is why I support the testing. It is effective. I still would like to see a better test developed but this is a move in the right direction.
At age 61 I had a PSA as part of my annual physical. I had skipped the previous year. The PSA was 6.2. Biopsy showed 8 of 10 cores were positive. Gleason score of 7 (3+4). The last PSA I had before this was 3.8. My only regret is tht I skipped the one year. I had the surgeryand there was a brekthroughof the prostate lining, and very minimal involvement of the bladder neck. Thank God, no lymph node or seminal vesicle involvement. So I had radiation, and my PSA is now undetectable. There had been no symptoms, and the "digital" (read finger up mybutt) test had disclosed nothing. It was only the PSA test that probably saved me from a much more dire result. It's only an additional test as part of a ny routine blood draw. I can't believe that anyone advocates skipping this test. It's a life saver!!! Once the symptoms show up, the prognosis is far less favorable; and the PSA isthe only way to detefdt nascent prostate cancer. There is no reason not to get it. The decision point is-if the biopsy turns out at Gleason 6 or above, what treatment to elect. That's a complicated decision that will vary from person to person.
From one who has been there...get the PSA test !!!!!!!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
reply to SD4020
