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.
Pathology Report - 12 Core Samples, but only 6 scores?
I recently received my pathology report. I had a 12-core biopsy. However, results show only 6 scores. Gleason is 3+3 for 4 scores. 20%, 10%, and 2 focal (<5%.
Here is my question. If I had a 12-core biopsy, why do I only have 6 scores? Don't tell me that they just combined 2 samples for each score!
Re: Pathology Report - 12 Core Samples, but only 6 scores?
Gene,
It would be helpful if you could post your biopsy report for our comment but in lieu of that I will speculate a bit. Your prostate is divided into 6 sectors. They typically take 2 cores from each sector. They may have combined the two core lengths from each sector and reported the results in a combined form.
I'm sure your urologist can sort this out for you if asked.
BTW....If you are considering AS then a 3T-MP-MRI would be helpful to make sure you do not have a higher grade tumor hiding somewhere.
Re: Pathology Report - 12 Core Samples, but only 6 scores?
Thanks for the comments.
My original post was after my initial visit post biopsy. I received the report at my meeting with the urologist, and did not get a chance to study it at the appointment.
They did group the core samples in twos. Not the best approach, in my opinion, but I do understand what they did. I do think this approach could overstate the prevalence of the cancer. For example, was this 4 or 12 or 4 of 6?
I spoke with a radiation oncologist this week and went over options. No decisions from me for awhile. Obviously not happy with the results, but I have read enough now to know this is not the end of the world. I have had an elevated PSA for 7 years, so I knew the biopsy might be positive. The good news - Gleason 6.
