Cancer sucks

Spitsix wrote: I just did the daily draining of the fluid around Sue's lungs. Took out 1.8 liters of fluid from the right side tonight. do the left side tomorrow night, we usually get about .5 liter from that side. Get results from the 4th round of chemo next Monday. Hopefully we will be ready for the bone marrow transplant soon.

That sounds like an absolutely terrible thing to have to do. Me and mine "got off easy" when compared to that E36 M3. Good luck, man.

I saw the urologist and only got the finger up the bum check. Prostate is only minimally enlarged so the high PSA is not a result of prostate volume. I go back in a couple of weeks for an ultrasound. If he finds anything he'll do a biopsy. If he sees nothing we'll do routine tracking of PSA to see if it was a rogue reading or if it continues to increase. If it does turn out to be cancer it is early and it shouldn't be a big problem, certainly nothing like Spitsix is dealing with. The key with any cancer is early detection and I feel we're on top of this.

DeadSkunk wrote: I saw the urologist and only got the finger up the bum check. Prostate is only minimally enlarged so the high PSA is not a result of prostate volume. I go back in a couple of weeks for an ultrasound. If he finds anything he'll do a biopsy. If he sees nothing we'll do routine tracking of PSA to see if it was a rogue reading or if it continues to increase. If it does turn out to be cancer it is early and it shouldn't be a big problem, certainly nothing like Spitsix is dealing with. The key with any cancer is early detection and I feel we're on top of this.

Deadskunk

I wish you the best of luck. I was surprised at the lack of knowledge of my family doctor and gastro about the prostate. Both had told me mine was enlarged. Later, my current urologist told me it was not and there were no lobes. But the biopsy showed cancer in two of 12 samples. The urologist just gve me the numbers and I had to make the decision. Two weeks after I had it removed, some entity came out and said to stop doing PSA test and don't have your prostate removed. THANKS A LOT.

In reply to spitfirebill: Had you seen that report before hand would you have made a different decision? I'm worried that I'll be in the same boat. Should I nip in the bud and have the prostate removed and live with the possible side effects, or adopt a wait and see stance where we monitor PSA over the next months and years. FWIW, Dr. Oz said he would not stop doing PSA tests,and he's on TV which is even more truthful than the internet.

DeadSkunk wrote: In reply to spitfirebill: Had you seen that report before hand would you have made a different decision? I'm worried that I'll be in the same boat. Should I nip in the bud and have the prostate removed and live with the possible side effects, or adopt a wait and see stance where we monitor PSA over the next months and years. FWIW, Dr. Oz said he would not stop doing PSA tests,and he's on TV which is even more truthful than the internet.

As soo as I saw the reports, I was mad that I had had the surgery. But, it depends on your age, what means the most to you and other intangebles. I was 58 when I had the surgery, so I figured I had a good many years left. I was a little worried that at my age and the slow down in my work, I could be laid off and not have health insurance. So I decided to do it. If the wife and I were super freaky deaky, I would have waited. If I was more assured about long term employement or was 68, I would have waited and watched. But, I did it and according to the last two PSA tests, it is gone and for that I am relieved.

The side effects can be incontinence, impotence and the end of your porn career. My Dr was right on the mark with how long it would take me to get over the incontenance. We won't talk about the other because it is probably mental.

As of now don't get too worked up.

PM me if you wish.

In reply to DeadSkunk and Spitfire Bill:

I serve on our hospital's prostate cancer center of excellence team (among several others too) - the short answer - PSA scores are correlated to cancer incidence - but not a perfect 1:1 correlation - it's an indicator and a useful tool - typically a score around 5 is trigger point for therapy. Newer scoring uses what's called a gleason scale. A biopsy is a direct observation and a clear decision point. As far as therapy options, radiation and surgery have similar survival stats. With improved surgical techniques, I think the risk for side effects (the big ones - incontinence and ED) are a little better on the surgical side. In choosing a surgeon - volume counts - it's significantly more important than whether they use a robot. If your surgeon hasn't done 1800 cases find another one.

edit - side effects - just an fyi on the ED - if the will is present, there are plenty of ways to make the body cooperate - beyond the little blue pills

Well, I'm 60 and would like to make to 92 (that's when my financial advisor's model says the money runs out, ), so I'll be sure to talk to as many experts as I can before making a decision. If he does a biopsy and it shows anything it'll be a pretty easy decision for me. My Dad had this, so that increases my chances of having it and cancer has hit both of my siblings, too. I'm a little gun shy right now.
As for finding a surgeon who has done a bunch,I've got access to both of the largest health care organizations in the region so that shouldn't be a problem.

I had a great surgeon and he used the Da Vinci robot. He also does it the regular way too, but the robot has faster recovery. It hurt pretty good for three days. Felt like I went 12 rounds with Joe Frazier doing the rope-a-dope.

I don't have the resources to make it 92. LOL