I don't see where tiv told us how many cores were positive - read back through the thread, and don't see it. So some of the discussion has run down a path that is well off the subject (oh well, that happens).
The most interesting point I see is his comment from the Mayo pathologist that seems to impune the quality of the cores. And the fact that only 7 of 10 were sent to Mayo. This implies that someone looked at them and made a decision not to send the other 3? Or perhaps they were damaged or not useable? Was there a first opinion, and Mayo was a second on questionable cores?
That all would make me ask about the process at the urologist's clinic. I watched my samples packed in the kit for shipping to Bostwick, so there was no intermediate review.
I'm not going to lodge an opinion on the validity of more cores in a biopsy. My results of the 12 done vs. the 6 the insurance authorized speaks for itself. More than 12 would have done nothing but raise more of the same flags, but less would have painted a much less risky picture.
However, I have to continue to remind all that what is state of the art, or even a normally accepted medical procedure may be out of the reach of many for economic reasons. My insurance refused to pay the "extra" 6 cores. Color Doppler - I asked after I discovered it, long after my surgery - "Experimental". Parts (acceptable and used in major VA hospitals) of my IGRT were refused as "experimental". Potential travel to a larger center of excellence - I would have to pay all of the travel out of pocket. Having to become an internet search guru and a debt negotiator took much of the time I should have been able to spend on getting myself ready for surgery. Instead it just adds to the stress and sleepless nights.
So with that, I ask about the original question - we don't know the process that led to the comments from Mayo.
Post Edited (142) : 11/7/2010 11:04:04 AM (GMT-7)