Prostate Cancer Survivors

 

YANA - YOU ARE NOT ALONE NOW

PROSTATE CANCER SUPPORT SITE

 

 

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.

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Re: Second Pathology Report

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)

Re: Second Pathology Report

Wendell,

I was initially diagnosed in August 2008 with 3 biopsy cores positive

The first lab saw my cancer as:

mid apex 3+4 80%
left apex 3+4 30%
right mid 3+4 20%

Three weeks later I sent my biopsy slides to a second prestigious pathologist in New York. The results were:

mid apex 4+4 75%
left apex 4+3 30%
right mid 4+3 15%

My PSA is 2.1 but based upon the upgraded Gleason score I was designated "high risk" and chose HT/Brachytherapy/EBRT as my treatment.

Even though I did not like the news from the second pathology report I'm so glad I did this as I might have otherwise been undertreated.

Al

RETURN TO HOME PAGE LINKS