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.
Bill, my doctor was also not randomly poking because he had been doing this procedure for more than 30 years. There are many fine doctors out there that are using the latest equipment and do a good job at performing the biopsy.
Unfortunately, there are many other docs who don't have that experience because they just finsihed their learning process, which in the medical community is done by the "See one, do one" process. There are too many biopsies that turn up negative when in reality you are positive. All I am saying is there must be a better way to get an accurate diagnosis. I would rather be told all the options for my treatment and be allowed to make an informed decision rather than not.
The other factor in this equation is the patient. Some cancers are very difficult to find and a more comprehensive method needs to be developed to give the patient the best chance to be properly evaluated irregardless of the doctors skill or the patients stage of disease.
This is a common problem in many areas of medicine and needs to be addressed if we are to get the proper treatment in a timely manner.
I was one of those difficult cases undergoing 13 biopsies and over 150 core samples in 10 years. I also had an MRIS which was also negative. I finally had a color doppler that showed a suspicious area and was referred to Dr Bahn who used color doppler to perform targeted biopsies. He discovered a large G 4+3 tumor. The MRIS was not pleasent, having to spend over an hour in a tube with an endorectal coil up your butt. The color doppler was the most accurrate and the least invasive.
JohnT
Thanks for the information. This looks like an interesting detection method. I will talk to my UCLA contatc and see what type may be able to do to help. It is just a matter of putting all the pieces together and I think we can move this process forward,
