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.
I think you are doing what many of us do - trying to resolve a problem that might not arise. It is often human nature to imagine the worst and to start thinking of potential solutions for this 'worst case' scenario before doing what Dr Strum recommends ASSESS STATUS BEFORE DETERMINING STRATEGY .
Part of the process of assessing stauts, in your case, might be to get a second opinion on the pathology and to get an opinion from your doctor as to his recommendation and compare this wth a second doctor's opinion.
In saying this I am not contradicting the advice that you have received here - the men who were good enough to respond to you may well be correct, but you may also be interested to read the commentary and summary of the New Guidance On Radiation After Radical Prostatectomy
Mike Scott writes these invaluable commentaries and it is important to note what he has to say, particularly:
There may be some considerable controversy about the interpretation of this new guideline. It is certainly the case that numerous men with “adverse pathologic findings including seminal vesicle invasion, positive surgical margins, and extraprostatic extension”at the time of surgery, and whose PSA level drops to an undetectable level post-surgery, have no rise in their PSA level after their surgery and appear to have been clinically cured of the original cancer. The question is therefore going to be exactly how individual surgeons apply some over the above guidance — i.e., by duly informing the patient but by adding “However, in your case I think we can afford to wait and monitor your PSA rather than applying radiation therapy immediately.”
The other issue that does not seem to be addressed in this guidance at all is the patient’s PSA doubling time. The situation of a man with a rising PSA post-surgery that goes from 0.1 to 0.4 over a period of 6 years (i.e., a PSA doubling time of 2 years) would seem to The “New” Prostate Cancer InfoLink to be very different to that of a man who’s PSA is doubling every 6 months or so and therefore goes from 0.1 to 0.4 in just 12 months. The former may never show signs of significant metastatic disease; the latter , on the other hand, probably will.
