Well, unfortunately after lurking on this site for the past several weeks, it is time to join. My husband received positive confirmation of his biopsy this week.
He turns 62 next month and went to the urologist in May with BPH symptoms. DRE was normal. Sent for a PSA which was 5.8 - had gone up from 2.9 twenty months earlier. Obvious alarm. Re-took test about 1 week later which was 6.5 with free PSA of 17 - different testing protocol which we understood as we read and compared the results.
Next up was biopsy. Tried to be positive given the percentages we were seeing were not horrible, but so far none of the less than alarming things you read about PC seems to hold true, particularly as I read this forum. All this low and slow PC talk seems designed for guys in their 70's and up.
One thing that is so confusing is PSA. Really as I look at some of your numbers I think, what ever prompted you to follow up. Were your doctors that on top of things? Certainly the lab values as compared to the levels of normal on the results sheet would never have prompted us to look at anything. I have lots of other lab values that are much higher in the range of normal than his PSAs were. I know that PSA doesn't tell the story, but it is certainly frustrating. Retrospectively, 2.9 at 60 years old which is how old my husband was at his last test, although not super great, doesn't seem terrible although in hindsight it apparently was. Maybe just trying to make myself feel better. I know Catalona is a big proponent of biopsy anything about 2.5, but the Sloan Kettering materials I saw, would not have called particular attention to anything we were seeing in his tests until this year.
So, Although not surprised by the positive diagnosis, we were surprised by the biopsy. He was positive in 11 of 12 cores. That certainly took us back. His results were:
Two cores of single focus less than 5%
One core of single focus 6%
Two cores of single focus of 8%
One core of single focus of 15%
One core of single focus of 20%
Two cores of discontinuous of 25%
One core of discontinuous of 50%
One core of discontinuous of 55%
No evidience of perineural invasion on any of the cores
10 of the 11 were gleason 3+3 and 1 was gleason 3+4 for an overall gleason of 7
We have requested a second reading by Epstein at Hopkins and are starting to look for second opinions as to what we should pursue and with whom.
I know this is alot of cancer and I know that there is a pretty reasonable chance that if surgery is pursued more will be found and gleason may be upgraded and more aggressive cancer may lurking in the areas not picked up on biopsy. My hope is that we will find that although the cancer is all around the prostate, it is overall rather sluggish cancer. Having it so many places is a great concern however.
I know the debate is between going straight to surgery vs going straight to RT as high volume cancer is higher liklihood to have escaped thus quite possibly requiring radiation anyway.
I admire you all, although I would be dishonest if I said that reading these forums doesn't depress and scare the hell out of me as to how many of you seem to keep needing treatment, etc. But my husband is being positive and primarily concerned with side effects of any treatment!!!
Feedback generally would be helpful. We live in Pittsburgh. UPMC has a big and well respected national cancer center here although I am not sure Urology is its strongest area of excellence. Was thinking of trying to get a second opinion, even if only via paper, from Cleveland Clinic as geographically that is close and they seem to have a well respected Prostate Cancer Center. Anyone know any doctors at the Cleveland Clinic? Any recommendations here in Pittsburgh?
Thanks again, and truly good luck to all of you.