This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
Wendell, get the second opinion. Your uro told you that when they send for second opinions: "there has very rarely been any difference." That means there HAVE been differences. You need to know if yours is one of them.
Also get second opinions about which form of treatment.
Concur with all the above. My 2nd opinion from Bostwick was almost an exact match with the original path report I received from my urologist. I am glad I did it because I am now more confident with what I am dealing with and how to approach treatment.
It's definately worth the getting 2nd opinion just for the peace of mind it offers.
Wendell:
A second opinion is worth the extra time & cost. There have been mistakes in the interpretation of the biopsies, and remember "regret is forever". My second opinion came back the same as the original, but I did talk with one individual who wished he had gotten a second opinion because his post-surgery pathology came back cancer-free!
Mike C
Hi Wendell,
A Gleason of 7 is usually considered a dividing point of where the effectiveness of a more agressive treatment than RP alone would be indicated. You should go for that second opinion! - p (Alaska, USA)
