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 wanted to offer my opinion of active surveillance. My urologist somewhat reluctantly offered this option, rules of which I dutifully followed for two years.
Ultimately with multiple biopsies showing worse numbers, I feel surveillance was a failure and could be viewed as risky. Only partial nerve sparing was possible because of cancer cell infiltration.
My regret is trying to avoid surgery for years.
My impotency was part of the payoff of waiting...the consequences of waiting and trying to preserve my manhood could have been far worse.
Bill; I fully understand what you are saying. My situation was similar in that I spent a year in denial after being diagnosed before taking the plunge with total treatment and the resulting consequences. That year of denial gave the cancer one more year to mature and become more serious. We all fear the treatment and the results from it, but it is often inevitable at some point and then more serious. My "surveillance" period was probably the years of "bliss and ignorance" before diagnosis while this adversary grew inside me plus the year I spent in denial. Yes, there is risk involved. Jon.
