Hello all this is my first time posting. Thank you for taking the time to read my post. I just received my dad's MRI results and I'm very concerned. He only began going to the doctor again about 2 1/2 years ago after not going to the doctor for about 10 years. His PCP did some bloodwork and he had a 7.16 ng/dL PSA result August 2022 and then 9.34 ng/dL November 2022. Since then he has been seeing a urologist and has had the following varying PSA numbers:
02-15-23: 7.86 ng/mL
05-26-23 6.13 ng/mL
10-13-23 6.77 ng/mL
03-29-24 8.0 ng/mL
09-27-24 9.4 ng/mL
This first Urologist suggested we keep monitoring PSA as he stated that his prostate felt fine and my dad doesn't have symptoms. He also stated that even if he does have cancer it might not be fast progressing nor need treatment.
However at this point since this last test resulted in a 9 PSA like he had about 2 years prior, I decided to seek a second opinion. He had a visit with Dr. Reiter at UCLA in December 2024. He ordered an MRI. I've included the MRI results I received yesterday below.
He has a follow up appointment with Dr. Reiter in the middle of March. Should this length of wait be fine? I added my dad to a waitlist for a sooner appointment because my dad and I are anxious to see the Doctor. The Doctor told us he would call or message us when he got the result so I'm wondering if I should ask if we should move forward with the biopsy before my dad's schedule appointment? I'm scared of the cancer spreading or spreading more.
I'm concerned because it seems it has spread outside the prostate and into the seminal vesicle. I'm assuming Stage IIIb? I told my dad this can be cured and I'm trying to be very positive. but I'm learning as I go. I feel sad, I feel guilty. I wish I would have been more proactive and sought out a second opinion sooner but he seemed to be doing well that I could not have expected this. He is of normal weight, doesn't drink/smoke, eats healthy, and has a joyful, extroverted, positive personality. Not a day goes by that he doesn't make me laugh. I'm his only daughter, in my 30's without any kids of my own. My dad is my whole world. His father died a long time ago from an accident and didn't have medical access so we don't know if he had prostate cancer. His mother lived to 98 years old and passed in her sleep a few months ago.
Can someone please give me some hope...your insight is very appreciated.
Age: 68
“3T MRI OF THE PROSTATE WITH AND WITHOUT CONTRAST and with 3D post-processing
CLINICAL HISTORY: Prostate Cancer
PSA 9.4 ng/mL (9/27/2024)
COMPARISON: None.
TECHNIQUE: MRI of the pelvis was performed on a 3 Tesla MAGNETOM Vida scanner. A transabdominal phased array was used. Small field of view sagittal, axial oblique and coronal oblique T2W TSE high resolution images and diffusion weighted images with
apparent diffusion coefficient map were obtained. Pre- and post-contrast axial dynamic view-sharing time-resolved gradient recalled echo T1-weighted images are acquired with intravenous administration of gadolinium contrast. Offline post-processing on a
dedicated InVivo DynaCAD 3 workstation was performed for generation of time-intensity curves and pharmacokinetic maps and 3D contouring of the prostate gland and any target lesions using combined automated and manual segmentation techniques.
CONTRAST: gadobutrol (Gadavist) 1 mmol/mL inj 7.5 mL.
FINDINGS:
Quality: Excellent
The prostate measures 31 g based on contour, (4.3 cm x 3.6 cm x 3.8 cm).
PSA Density 0.30 ng/mL/cc
The background transition zone is enlarged and heterogeneous. The background peripheral zone is heterogeneous with linear and wedge-shaped foci of T2 hypointensity, consistent with sequela of prior prostatitis.
The following appears suspicious (PI-RADS 3, 4, or 5):
Target #1/ ROI #1 (3D T2 slice #22)
Location: right posterolateral peripheral midgland to base.
Clock-face axial location: 6-9 o'clock.
Cranio-caudal location: 35-85% of distance from apex to base.
Longest diameter: 2.4 cm.
Capsular involvement: minimal extracapsular extension that approaches and likely involves the neurovascular bundle, particularly at the apical midgland (8-31).
T2 signal: irregular markedly hypointense signal with irregular margins, 5/5 suspicion.
Diffusion-weighted imaging: focal markedly hyperintense high B-value DWI and markedly hypointense ADC, 650 square microns/second, 5/5 suspicion.
Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion: early, intense with plateau positive.*
Enhancement kinetics: Ktrans 0.107, Kep 0.655, iAUC 2.850.
Suspicion for extracapsular extension: 5 (1 = very low suspicion, 2 = unlikely, 3 = intermediate suspicion, 4 = likely, 5 = definite).
Suspicion for neurovascular bundle involvement: 3 (1 = none, 2 = possible, 3 = highly likely).
Suspicion for seminal vesicle invasion: 4 (1 = very low suspicion, 2 = unlikely, 3 = intermediate suspicion, 4 = likely, 5 = definite).
Overall PI-RADSv2.1 Score: 5/5 (1=very low suspicion, 5=very highly suspicious).
Overall UCLA Score: 5/5 (1 = very low suspicion, 5 = very highly suspicious).
Limited views of the pelvis reveal no enlarged lymph nodes. No focal bone lesions are present.
IMPRESSION:
1. Focal findings suspicious for neoplasia with a PI-RADS 5 lesion in the right posterolateral peripheral midgland to base.
2. Capsular margin: suggestion of capsular, neurovascular bundle, and seminal vesicle involvement as described above.
Overall PI-RADS Category: 5/5
*Standardized reporting guidelines follow recommendations by ACR-ESUR PI-RADS v2.1
SB1419
*Modified PI-RADSv2.1 Scoring for Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Imaging is utilized at UCLA as follows: a peripheral zone lesion will only be considered positive if it corresponds to a focal abnormality on T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted imaging and
enhances earlier than (not contemporaneously with) surrounding normal peripheral zone tissue.
Appendix (based on UCLA data/publications)
Overall MRI sensitivity for prostate cancer detection = 47%
Sensitivity for tumors > 1 cm or for Gleason > 3 + 4 = 72%
In-Bore MR-Guided Biopsy CDR MR/US Fusion Biopsy CDR
PI-RADS 2: 7% PI-RADS 1/2: 15%
PI-RADS 3: 44% PI-RADS 3: 23%
PI-RADS 4: 63% PI-RADS 4: 64%
PI-RADS 5: 94% PI-RADS 5: 80%
1. Eur Urol 2019;75(5):712-720
2. Radiology 2017;283(1):130-139
3. Cancer 2016;122(6):884-892
4. Abdom Radiol 2016;41:954-962
5. Eur Urol 2015;67(3):569-576
6. Am J Roentgenol 2015;1:W87-92"