I am 33 now and I seriously am tired of this gland. In June of last year, Dr. Bahn's color doppler showed a suspicious lesion in my prostate and he said it was chronic prostatitis, told me to stop worrying, and make sure to get a PSA test every 6 months (which kind of contradicts the "stop worrying" part). Now a multiparamatric 1.5T MRI (without endorectal coil) show my prostate with "diffuse signal abnormality throughout the peripheral zone" and "intermediate suspicion of carcinoma" at the exact lesion
location Dr. Bahn saw, but also indicated "inflammatory changes within the prostate can have a similar appearance".
My prostatic fluid showed no signs of inflammation and my diet is vegan plus anti-inflammatory and anti-agiogenesis supplements like tumeric, ginger, cayene's pepper, garlic, berries, green tea, pomegranate, flax seeds...you name it. My naturapathic doctor says I must do this because of the state of my prostate.
My PSA fluctuates between 1 and 1.5 with a constant 46% free PSA, but the vascularity of my peripheral zone has increased since last year.
My urologist is puzzled because:
1) my PSA and fPSA%, and PSA density indicates I have no cancer
2) my MRI lesion can only come from cancer or inflammation, but my prostatic fluid showed no signs of inflammation and my diet is entirely anti-inflammatory. The vascularity and diffusion weighted image of my peripheral zone is definitely abnormal and the radiologist said he wouldn't be surprised if it is cancer.
My urologist believes a biopsy is wise since my case is so weird the indicators all contradict each other. He ordered a 4Kscore test for me and said he'd be supportive of me getting a fusion biopsy with a 3T MRI.
Although I am young, I started prepping myself for this since last year. I hope the fusion biopsy finds nothing but inflammation, but at the same time, I wouldn't mind if I can just get rid of this gland somehow. I am young enough to recover from the side effects and I can still benefit from future advancements such as stem cell therapy for ED.
Am I crazy to think that I see no benefit in this gland at all other than a source of problems such as prostatatis, BPH, infections, and cancer? Plus the anxiety of frequent PSA testing.
Since life expectancy is going up all the time, in 50 years it will be like 90-100, and I'll be 83. If we live old enough, we are all going to get prostate cancer. So the choice for me is like:
1) 20% chance of ED (at my age) + advancements in stem cell therapy
2) 80% of cancer(especially since my prostate is already in a bad state)
I think a cancer cure is still 50 years away, but a cure for ED will come sooner.
Is it not wiser to remove it entirely BEFORE it turns cancerous?
If you were my age of 33 today, would you at least not consider "preemptive prostatectomy"?
Post Edited (thunder2004) : 11/18/2014 9:48:55 PM (GMT-7)