HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

still scared, but learning

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 1/19/2016 5:00 AM (GMT 0)
soooo... Mike's psa at 5.7 , mri says two suspicious areas, one highly suspicious...biopsy set for feb 12th. Could this possibly be anything other than pc? good news is mri say appears confined to prostate. Have read that mri's generally detect more aggressive tumors. Is that true? Many sleepless nights but lots of reading and learning.

Post Edited (mikeslady) : 1/19/2016 5:50:37 PM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/19/2016 5:42 AM (GMT 0)
Yes, there are other things besides prostate cancer that can both cause an elevated PSA and look suspicious on an MRI. That's why they are doing the biopsy.

But, of course, that won't stop you and Mike from worrying.

Be sure to come back and tell us about his biopsy results. We do a pretty good job here at helping to modulate panic. Prostate cancer is almost always a slow-going disease and there is seldom a need for a man to run around with his hair on fire if he is diagnosed -- sometimes it doesn't even need to be treated, it can just be watched. Sometimes it does need to be treated but even then there is lots of time to make a decision. If the biopsy does show cancer come back and we'll point you at the information to help decide what, if anything, needs to be done.

I think it is more accurate to say that MRIs detect fewer of the less-aggressive tumors but that sort of amounts to the same thing.
Posted 1/19/2016 6:17 AM (GMT 0)
Lady of Mike,
Welcome to HW forum. I hope that Mike's biopsy is negative, but if you find that he does indeed have PCa, you will find a lot of support from the wives here ad we'll.
Best wishes!
Beth
Posted 1/19/2016 9:15 AM (GMT 0)
This forum has already been helpful, as it was advice I received here that caused us to request and pay out of pocket (insurance wouldn't pay) for an MRI before biopsy. And the more I read, the more I am convinced that the $575.00 we spent to obtain it and allow for an mri fused biopsy , will ensure that the biopsy can target the most suspicious areas instead of taking "shots in the dark". Hopefully, this will also mean that Mike will need fewer biopsies to diagnose his problem. Have been also finding so much information here. No matter how this turns out, this scare will prompt me to be a crusader for appropriate-age pc testing, especially in the African American community, as the incidence of pc is higher in our race and tends towards a worse outcome, perhaps due to later diagnosis and treatment.

Post Edited (mikeslady) : 1/19/2016 2:18:53 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/19/2016 12:12 PM (GMT 0)
Hello mikeslady,when I had my fusion biopsy I was sedated. I didnt ask for sedation , that was what my Uro wanted to do.I was fine with that.Was that MRI a 3t-mpMRI that was used ? ? The radiologist that will read the MRI should give a PIRAD score on the lesion.The numbers are 1 to 5.Mine was a 4.This means 5 being the highest score, my lesion, or tumor ,was not to be ignored.The samplings from the biopsy will be sent to a pathologist for a reading.You will then get a Gleason Score.It is highly recommended on this site to get a second opinion of those slides from John Hopkins or Bostwick.It pays to read over and over the STICKY on top for Newly Diagnosed if it is Cancer . SemperFi
Posted 1/19/2016 12:26 PM (GMT 0)
Many guys don't seem to have much of an issue with it but if it were me I would definitely be sedated for a biopsy if I needed another one.

Jon
Posted 1/19/2016 12:42 PM (GMT 0)
Test was:Multiparametric images using Philips Achieva 3 Tesla scanner, with 3d reconstruction?? Sounds like maybe yes for 3t-mpMRI??

Results were: Prostate volume 37cc. Right peripheral zone contained a 10 mm X 4 mm X 4 mm ill-defines lesion in the medial midgland that demonstrates restricted diffusion, abnormal enhancement and no hyperintense signal on the long B sequence, It is moderately concerning for prostatic malignancy. 3/5

A similar-appearing infiltrative lesion is present in the left peripheral zone extending from the medial base to the medial mid gland. It measures 7 mm x 5 mm x 11 mm. It demonstrates brisk abnormal enhancement, restricted diffusion and a faint hyperintense signal on the ling B sequence. It is highly concerning for prostate malignancy 4/5. Overlying caps intact, No specific lesions are seen to the anterior fibromuscular stroma. Nodular hypertrophy of the transitional appears benign.

The retroprostatic fat planes are clear. No lymphadenopathy is seen to include lymph node chains. No abnormal enhancing lesions are seen to the included bones to suggest osseous metastasis.

Please interpret...are these suspicious lesions relatively large or small? Are they on both side of the prostate? Any other "telling" information???

Post Edited (mikeslady) : 1/19/2016 5:55:33 AM (GMT-7)

Posted 1/20/2016 2:57 AM (GMT 0)
My experience in reading prostate MRI radiology reports totals 1 so far (2 including yours).

I believe my areas of interest were smaller and I had two as well. My 2 were both rated "highly likely for clinically significant disease" ....meaning 5/5 for both "lesions".

On one of my lesions there was a disagreement between the two radiologists that interpreted the images. One said 5/5 for cancer and the other disagreed.

On the other lesion they both agreed it was probably cancer.

When I recieve my 2nd opinion post op path report this week from Dr. Epstien at JH I believe he'll be able to tell me "who won".

What I can tell you is that my Likert scores were higher than Mikes and I was a G7 (3+4) according to the local pathology lab.

I'll know more this week and it sounds as if you'll know alot more soon as well.

Fwiw...it's early to be hitting the panic button. (But...my guess is you've already hit it. That would be normal).
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply