Has anyone experienced this?

[maxieb1965]

Was first diagnosed in Nov 2015 (two of the 12 sample cores came back positive-gleason score of 6). My psa was 5.5..Urologist recommended active surveillance. Made some changes in my diet and started taking a number of herbs & vitamins, and as of May 2016 had reduced PSA to 4.2.. This past November PSA went up to 8.35 and Urologist said it's time for another biopsy. Had the biopsy two weeks ago and got the results yesterday. Had to wait that long for the pathology report because the pathologist had to get a consult/2nd opinion...Results were no cancel cells present!....Am scheduled for another for PSA and exam in July...Has anyone experienced something like this or have you heard of a similar situation such as I just experienced?

[Dr_WHO]

Congratulations! Hope it keeps to comes out negative this summer! 🎉🎉🎉

[maxieb1965 in reply to Dr_WHO]

Thanks for for your comment..we shall see what happens in July....meantime I will continue doing what I've been doing with diet, exercise, and supplementation....

[pjoshea13]

Biopsies often miss lesser cancer. I was a bit put out that my second biopsy (PSA=3) found Gleason=4+3, whereas the earlier biopsy found nothing. Since I was being monitored, due to a nodule, I expected to see an orderly progression from Gleason 3+3 to 3+4. It was a shock to be suddenly a 4+3. My urologist said it was common to get a Gleason of 3+4 or 4+3 when earlier biopsies were negative.

A biopsy is just a sampling &, mercifully, most Gleason 3+3 men are not detected. 75% do not progress, but Gleason 3+3 continues to be overtreated. Dr Myers once said that it should not be called cancer, because that scares men into treatment.

Current thinking is that men with Gleason 3+3 should be in active surveillance [AS]. The problem with AS, IMO, is the annual biopsy that is forced on men. For 75% of the men, it seems pointless to keep having biopsies year after year. For the 25% who will progress, it seems inefficient to have to wait until the cancer is more serious.

I feel that with a Gleason 3+3, one should get a 4Kscore test [1]. It can effectively tell a man if he is in the majority & can relax, or in the minority that should have treatment.

Unfortunately, 4Kscore is not yet covered by insurance.

-Patrick

[1] 4kscore.bioreference.com/le...

[vandy69]

Good Morning maxieb1965,

One of the new biopsy protocols is a 3 T Multi perimetric MRI guided biopsy. This eliminates the randomness of the typical TRUS 12 core grid biopsy and can yield more accurate results. Not sure how insurance handles this procedure however.

NIH is doing much work in this area and several members of a local Atlanta support group have used Dr. Joe Busch in Chattanooga for this type of imaging.

Best wishes. Never Give In.

Mark, Atlanta

[maxieb1965 in reply to vandy69]

Thank you for responding and for the info-will definitely check this out and bring it to the attention of my Urologist when I go in for my exam and evaluation in July....Continued good health to you Mark.......MAX

[Skip47]

Yes, remember with the core samples taken an area of the prostate which is involved with cancer cells might be a target that is missed. When the rectal exam is abnormal there are more defined areas to seek a biopsy, when not it is done systematically, but areas that are present might not be "hit". The good news is that you and your team are watching things, and I would think your involvement I still minimal (but present), and there's no reason to go to any active treatment at this time.

One horror story I was made aware of some years ago was a man who underwent MANY biopsy sessions (168 core samples total were taken), and no positive biopsies for prostate cancer! Everything pointed to cancer being present, and finally with some imaging studies to better guide the biopsies the cancer was found. OUCH!! He's a better man than I, and I can't even begin to wrap my head around that experience.

[maxieb1965 in reply to Skip47]

I was concerned with what you bring up with the two core samples that were originally identified with cancer cells two years ago. I specifically asked my Urologist that question, and he assured me he had taken additional samples from that specific location. When he told me that the pathologist examining the slides wasn't sure of the diagnosis, he had a second opinion/consult done, and then it was confirmed that there were no cancer cells present,,,,It took me awhile to comprehend this, but after talking to my regular doctor and some other people, I now know and understand the situation better. My rise or elevated PSA level is due to an increased or larger prostate (even though I am not experiencing any of the severe symptoms associated with an enlarged prostate (70% volume)....I'm going to wait until July for my next exam and see what the results are at that time-then I will look at the treatment options available. Thanks for taking the time to respond...best of health to you....MAX