Prostate Size Question

After my biopsy today, i meant to ask the doc, but forgot, what the size of my prostate was. If i remember correctly, last biopsy, two years ago it was 33 (cc's i think?)
So i called the office and the nurse called me back, and told me that it was 22ccs this time.

What the hell does this mean? It would seem to me that it would be bad news, because it would eliminate an enlarged prostate as the cause of the high PSA.
So two questions -
1. is my assumption correct that it increases the chances that it could be caner?
2. how could my prostate shrink, from two years ago?
3. does this have anything to do with what the Gleason score might be?

I was feeling a little better, since there was "pretty much" (in the doctors words) no abnormalities seen on the ultrasound. Not sure what "pretty much" means and i asked him, he just said it looked fine. But maybe he was bothered by the fact that it was small.

Anybody have any answers? This next week is going to be torture waiting for results.

My last PSA before biopsy was 4.7. My prostate size at biopsy was 137 which gives PSA density of .034. At biopsy I was diagnosed with PC with Gleason of 6.

Sorry if i am incessantly posting, i thought i could let this go after my biopsy, until i get results, but i can't seem to do so.
This is important - i do not understand something and i am hoping someone can tell me, maybe i am missing something -
As i stated, the nurse called me in response to my call after the biopsy, to ask the size of my prostate. She told me it was 22, and the doc wrote "normal size" on the report.

I looked back at my last biopsy, and in the path report it states - prostate size - 38cc's.
How can a man be 2 years older, and in that time, the prostate shrinks by 40%. Is this possible?
The old path report even said something about slight BPH. That doesnt go away by itself as far as i know. I haven't taken any drugs for it.

Any explanations?

From what my doctor told me some time back, a man can have a “normal” size prostate and a low PSA but can still have PC! So who can say what “normal” is. I think it all depends on the individual. This why PC is so sneaky and can creep up and bite you in the ass without prior warning or symptoms. I think most guys just ignore the very early and possible symptoms and just put it down to something else or age.

Pratoman. I think you should get a prize for starting the most threads here. Maybe the "golden rivet" LOL

Only joking. I fully understand how you are feeling right now.

I an not sure about prostate size. Past information that I have gathered says it is normal for a man of 60+ to have an enlarged prostate. They also say 60% of men age 70 have some form of prostate cancer, that rises to around 70% age 80. Is that actually true??? HT will also shrink the size of your prostate.

They say the normal size of a prostate is the size of a walnut, so go measure your nuts! Just a shame it is not as hard, then the cancer would never get out!

Check out my stats.....The reason I had to have the bone scan was because of the PSA spike from 5.1 to 19....”Casper sits alongside Pratoman on the worry bench”

Let it be known that research has shown that statistically there is a higher incidence of more aggressive cancer in smaller prostates. And normal to large prostates typically have a higher chance for negative margins (which seems logical.)

I believe there's a difference between prostate volume and prostate weight. Weight could only be determined after it's removed AFAIK. I've had a prostate "calculated volume" reported after each CDUS and MRI, always around 43cc ±5%. Volume seems only useful for calculating PSA Density and tumor size relative to prostate size.

Wow @ 96


In another forum, someone pointed out to me that the nurse who quoted me 22 was using cms, not CCs , which would translate into 32 ccs.
Makes sense