I wondered what people's thoughts are on the following: Which is more important where you start your diagnosis, or how you respond to treatment? If a man diagnosed with wide spread bone mets manages to get his PSA to an undetectable level with aggressive chemo/hormone treatment, is he then in a better position than a man diagnosed with, say a lymph node met, who manages to get his PSA to a low level with radiation but is not undetectable?
Thanks in advance.
Written by
SC19
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Good question! I have wide spread bone meets and am currently undetectable. I've watched others here with less widespread and supposedly less aggressive disease fail one treatment after another as their cancer slowly continues to grow and spread. Response to treatment is very important.
On the other hand, I am mildly symptomatic, and those with less wide spread disease typically aren't. I'm incurable, while those with only a few mets, or only localized disease, have a shot at a cure. So given comparable response to treatment, it's better to have less disease.
Neither! It’s the journey , and smelling the flowers along the way . We all will end up the same in time. “ Pluck the day” or it will pluck you . Take care .
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.