Hi rpw, - It all depends on the results you receive. You are attempting to put things into nice little isolated boxes that can, individually, magically resolve your diagnostic dilemma, but it is not that simple. If it was, Physicians would be far less necessary in the diagnostic process.
Physicians are very necessary to the process, because individual results tend to be "indicators" that are subject to professional interpretation of applicability to your individual situation. For instance, there is only ONE widely accepted method of confirming a Prostate Cancer (PCa) diagnosis and that is by a Pathologist (an MD. specialist) examining tissue samples under the microscope and observing actively malignant (cancerous) cells in the tissue samples, most often first obtained by Biopsy.
Although this is a subjective judgment, it has proven over the years to be, by far, the most reliable method of diagnosing PCa. Improvements in Imaging equipment has substantially increased the value of this diagnostic tool, but at the present stage of development, it still requires Pathologic confirmation of PCa by direct examination.
Like in LAW, in MEDICINE it is often the assessment of the preponderance of ALL of the cumulative evidence that helps determine the final definitive diagnosis. Once that is established, viable treatment options can be examined with the realization that the final decision will, again, be a subjective one with potential disagreement by experts and amateurs alike, as to which is best suited for your specific situation. Realistically, your final decision MAY be affected, as much or more, by personal considerations and individual personality traits, than by the objective medical factors involved.
What did I mean by my
opening sentence in this communication? Example: If you had a "negative" Biopsy Report, which means NO PCa was found from a random, patterned Biopsy, but subsequent Imaging results demonstrate highly "suspicious" area's that are more in line with the elevated PSA result that is involved, another "guided" Biopsy would probably be recommended, to more specifically investigate those "suspicious" lesions. In this case the Imaging MAY have replaced the ORIGINAL Biopsy results in diagnostic significance.
There are generally no easy answers in treatment decisions involved with early- stage PCa, but whatever you decide should be an "informed" one, that allows you to proceed with the confidence that you have made the best possible choice you can make, based upon appropriate due diligence, as you perceive it.
Then don't look back, as NO ONE can ever know what the result of any alternative decision would have been. Good luck and best wishes for an effective result to whatever you choose. -
[email protected] (aka) az4peaks