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.
Ah, my good purelife52, you took to heart the advice to keep on asking questions!!
If you go to any of the nomograms, such as the Partin Table (which I assume you have discovered by now) you will get some idea of the differing probabilities of extension related to the differing Gleason Scores. The probabilities differ from institution to institution (thus adding to the confusion) - I’d give you a link to a page that lists a number of calculators, but fear if I did so you’d be posting a lot more questions – mainly asking why the answers differed!
The Partin Tables are the best known, I’d say, because they were developed first and they make no primary distinction between GS8, 9, 10 tumours, lumping them all together as they do with GS 5 and 6 yet they distinguish between GS 7a (3+4) and 7b (4+3).
So in answer to your specific question
1. Are the 8-9-10 rated tumors often or rarely completely contained within the capsule? The Partin Tables are based on three aspects of diagnosis – PSA level, Staging and Gleason Score and the probabilities of containment vary with the application of those factors. Going to the highest limits of the Partin Table – PSA greater than 10 ng/ml, clinical staging T2c, GS 10, the probability of the disease being contained is between 7 and 18% with a median of 12%, which I guess you might define as ‘rarely’ contained. The probability of containment is significantly higher with lower PSA, staging and GS – probably fitting into your definition of ‘often’ being contained
2. When they are contained and removed like a "common" gleason 6 or 7 are the longterm outcomes worse? If so why? There would be an expectation that a GS 8, 9 or 10 tumour that is surgically removed would likely have a worse long term outcome than a GS 6 or 7 because the chances of extension beyond the prostate gland/capsule/bed are greater – see #1 above – and therefore the chances of early metastasis are greater.
Just to confuse you a little further there is a theory (impossible to prove) that by the time a prostate tumour is large enough to be identified the disease is systemic, that is to say, tumour cells are distributed throughout the body, without necessarily metastasising or taking root. In terms of this theory (as expanded, which I won’t go into now) the removal of the main tumour may give these systemically placed cells the opportunity to take root and metastasize.
The obvious and immediate objection to this theory is that there are many men who do not develop metastasized disease after surgical removal of the gland. That is so, and in comes another theory: that the immune system of the men who do not progress is in better condition than the men who do have progression and is capable of mopping up the systemically distributed cells once it no longer has to deal with the main tumour.
All theories: none demonstrable; but interesting in concept.
