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.
ProstaVysion - a genetic test for determining tumor aggressiveness
To all those practicing active surveillance out there – READ ABOUT PROSTAVYSION BELOW, WHICH IS A NEW GENETIC TEST THAT GIVES INSIGHT INTO THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF YOUR TUMOR. NOTE: this is not a sales pitch. I am simply a 55 year old, retired watchful waiting PC patient that stumbled upon this while looking for a lab that did PCa3 testing. Here’s my story: I got sick in 2007. Blood work revealed a PSA of 47. Antibiotics dropped that to 5, and a biopsy confirmed I had cancer. Now four years later, my last biopsy revealed that I had cancer in 4 of 12 cores, which were all 45% cancerous. Back when I first posted on the WatchWait.com website (see “Alan said” on September 28th & 29th, 2011; there are three posts in all on those two days), I said that I was holding out hope for a breakthrough in genetic testing, which I had been reading about. When introduced, it was suppose to give insight into the aggressiveness of the tumor. This information was very important to me in that it would make the difference between having surgery and continuing active surveillance. Note that my first 12 core biopsy had only 2 positive cores, which were 5 & 30% cancerous. The recent biopsy could mean progression, although it is not possible to know for sure because results can change from year to year due to changes in needle placement. All I know is that I couldn’t take that chance. My results were, at the time, the worst I had seen for a Gleason 6 on the WachWait.com site. Still I could not pull the trigger on surgery until I knew I had done everything I could to avoid it, or any other kind of treatment. After all, according to a formula developed @ Sloan-Kettering hospital, I still had a 34% chance of having indolent cancer (meaning it would not likely need treatment). As mentioned above, in my search for a U.S. lab that did PCa3 testing, I came across ProstaVysion. It is new (I believe it came out in May of this year) and it is only performed by Bostwick Laboratories. Here is a little excerpt from their website: Bostwick Laboratories is proud to offer ProstaVysion, the first personalized genetic panel for prostate cancer. A tissue-based panel, the test examines three major mechanisms of prostate carcinogenesis: HOXD3, ERG and PTEN. By examining all three of these markers, ProstaVysion is able to provide molecular analysis of the aggressiveness of the patient’s prostate cancer and his long-term prognosis. Google “ProstaVysion” (note the spelling) to find out more about it, or call them up. I did, and they put me in touch with their rep who helped me make arrangements to have the test done. The GREAT part of that was that I was not subjected to any additional tests (or biopsies). All they needed was for Lahey Clinic to release my biopsy slides to them from last January. It was that simple. It will be 7 to 10 days before I get the results back, but I have some hope where, before, there was none. Good luck to all for which this information is relevant.
Re: ProstaVysion - a genetic test for determining tumor aggressiveness
Interesting, Alan, please keep us informed.
I am less convinced than you are about the value of this test, which, as far as I can see has not been subjected to any peer review. In the fifteen years I have been on AS (Active Surveillance) I have seen many claims made by individual organisations, but few of these claims have proved to be valid when subject to objective scrutiny.
I have not read all the studies referred to in the Bostwick page but those I have read are not exactly conclusive, referring to associations between the various tests and potential outcomes. Association is not proof.
I don’t have time right now to read all the references, but perhaps someone else might and summarise the relevance of these small studies?
