and in know way is it incorrect. Since it runs in my family I was already fairly aware and have been getting screened since I was 40. At the same time when you have a PSA of .7 and they find a "bump"...and all of a sudden its suddenly deadly serious.
I thought since my PSA was so low I was clean and it was just a formality to go see a urologist. When he told me that I had not just 1 but 2 bumps and that given the family history it was "more then likely" I had cancer...I got real educated real fast.
While prostrate cancer in older men is often non aggressive and slow moving the more malignant strains can be very very fast moving and deadly. To a degree the numbers 500,000 cases/200,000 deaths tell the tail. both my dad and uncle are long term survivors (over 20 yrs each) so it was very unnerving to see the mortality rates, especially in "younger" men.
If you have an aggressive strain and were lucky enough to catch it early (which sadly is not the majority) then you literally may have only months before you go from stage 2 to stage 4. Accordingly it is very very important that anyone afflicted get a gleason score pretty quickly.
"Watchful waiting is normally for stage 1 (PSA detected) with a low gibson score. If your gibson score is high and/or the nodule was located digitally you've got less time to decide on a course of action.
At the same time prostate cancer is suprisingly fickle, patients with good scores and early detection can die quickly and others with later stage detection and high gleason scores can survive along time...I think its great 411 and well worth posting.
My concern would be that people who read it either delay/avoid screening or making a tough choice if they have it based on potentially incomplete advice.
My own thoughts are as follows, if you have a high gleason score and early detection I would not mess around with it and would follow the course of action recommended by a good oncologist/urologist team based on the statistical probabilities as they relate to you. Get it while its localized, hit it hard and kill it...
If it got detected "late" (digitally) then your already at higher risk, but statistically its more likely to be less aggresive if you had regular PSA screening. Here I personally belief that later stage lower gleason suggests more aggresive treatment (again its likely local)...but once you get into later stage higher gleason then the cats out of the bag and if its spread then I think a host of less traditional treatments are certainly worth considering.
If your over 40 and have any history you should have both a digital exam and PSA test every year IMO. Even if you dont you should get both at 45 and then regular screening at 50. If you have a high PSA or "bump" then you need to get a biopsy in a reasonable time frame and act according to the gleason score....but realize that the proximity of the prostrate to the hip makes the transition to a form of bone cancer very fast and that is the leading cause of death for prostate cancer.
I want you all to know that there is possibly another cure other than going under the knife!!
With Love,
Cheyenna
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Most prostate cancer treatments are unneccesary and HARMFUL!
Treatments for prostate cancer such as surgery to remove the prostate gland or radiotherapy may not be necessary for most men diagnosed with a low-grade of the disease.
While prostate cancer treatments can result in serious side effects, including incontinence and impotence, a modeling study by researchers at the Institute of Cancer Research in England found that men whose cancer is detected early by a PSA screening are not likely to die from the disease.
The study predicted that men between the ages of 55 and 59 with low-grade cancer have a one in 100 chance of dying from the disease within 15 years, even when no treatment was received. So treatments are not likely to prolong survival in these cases.
The PSA test, which measures levels of prostate-specific antigen, a protein produced by the prostate gland, allows doctors to detect prostate cancer earlier.
The researchers are testing a new technique for prostate cancer called Active Surveillance, which will help ensure that treatment is given only to men who will benefit. Men who have high-grade, advanced, prostate cancer, for instance, would likely benefit from treatments.
Guest Comment by Dr. Larry Clapp [Clapp, ha ha ha.... ad to say it, lol]
This study happily confirms what we have been coaching and observing for 16 years now, since I resolved my own prostate cancer, without drugs or surgery, in 1990.
However, it is even better because cleansing and rebuilding, as spelled out in Prostate Health in 90 Days Without Drugs or Surgery -- 2005 Edition, has enabled the men who have followed the program to actually heal their prostates.
On successive sonograms, one can actually see the blood flow to a prostate tumor diminish, and then the tumor itself diminish and disappear, by following a program of deep cleansing and rebuilding. The only side effects are a renewed sexuality, and a healthier and happier, long life.
The study demonstrates pretty clearly that the tendency of many urologists to rush to cut, fry or freeze the prostate is unwarranted in most cases. What the study fails to demonstrate, though, is that prostate cancer can be healed naturally, which may be even more important to men diagnosed with prostate cancer.
The Related Links section below has three terrific articles that detail how you can apply some powerful and effective nutritional tools to the treatment of prostate, or for that matter breast cancer.
Good information and post.
Thank You
2008=27
BTW Dr. Larry is a drip but I do Applaud him.
A more "hands-on" prevention technique...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm
to late for me, had surgery in 2003 but woulld like to express my thanks to gals like AZ Misty for understanding that post surgery guys still have the urge even with falty equipment.
Same with me, surgery in '05, saw Diana and all my thanks sweetheart for a great time. I still owe you lunch or dinner!
The problem with this is that its an incomplete and very misleading set of statements.
I'm speaking from personal experience here BTW.
1) PSA is a good indicator but not infallable. Only about 70& of prostrate cancer is setected (there is a more accurate dianostic PSA test that only a urologist can order BTW)...
2) If you do have a "bump" the odds are about 50/50 that its cancer regardless of your PSA.
3) Active surveillance is by no means new in any way shape or form. Statistically prostate cancer in men is almost a certainty if you live long enough. The older you are when it occurs the less aggresive it is (most of the time). Given the potential effects and complications it has long been sound practice to ignore anything but the most aggressive cancer in men arounf the age of 70 and older.
4) Prostate cancer tends to be more aggressive the earlier you get it. It actually has a suprisingly high mortality rate in men who are afflicted in there 40's and early 50's. The primary problem is that its natural progression is from the prostate to the hip. Once it migrates to the bone the survival rate is very low. Often the 1st sign is chronic hip, lower back or upper leg pain and stiffness.
5) This does not mean that surgery is the best answer, in fact there is clinical evidence that a biopsy can actually increase the potential problems. There is actually alot of clinical evidience that bloodroot and other natural herbs are in fact effective against prostrate and some other cancers.
In my case the biopsy and subsequent tests showed that I fell on the good side of the pass line...but you learn an awful lot in those few weeks.
The bottom line is simple, prostate cancer is just that....cancer. Left alone it will with almost 100% certainty kill you...potentially within less then 18 months. There are a variety of non invasive treatments (google bloodroot to start down that road)...but in the end you need to know what your dealing with.
While I was going thru this I happened to read on the net that John Fogerty died of prostate cancer at 53 or 54...within less then 2 years of diagnosis. Be infromed but dont be stupid or rely on wishful thinking...
-- Modified on 5/3/2008 10:35:28 AM
Thank you!
I am going by what I read from a "trusted site" yet someone who has been through it knows so much more than I.
Kisses,
C
and in know way is it incorrect. Since it runs in my family I was already fairly aware and have been getting screened since I was 40. At the same time when you have a PSA of .7 and they find a "bump"...and all of a sudden its suddenly deadly serious.
I thought since my PSA was so low I was clean and it was just a formality to go see a urologist. When he told me that I had not just 1 but 2 bumps and that given the family history it was "more then likely" I had cancer...I got real educated real fast.
While prostrate cancer in older men is often non aggressive and slow moving the more malignant strains can be very very fast moving and deadly. To a degree the numbers 500,000 cases/200,000 deaths tell the tail. both my dad and uncle are long term survivors (over 20 yrs each) so it was very unnerving to see the mortality rates, especially in "younger" men.
If you have an aggressive strain and were lucky enough to catch it early (which sadly is not the majority) then you literally may have only months before you go from stage 2 to stage 4. Accordingly it is very very important that anyone afflicted get a gleason score pretty quickly.
"Watchful waiting is normally for stage 1 (PSA detected) with a low gibson score. If your gibson score is high and/or the nodule was located digitally you've got less time to decide on a course of action.
At the same time prostate cancer is suprisingly fickle, patients with good scores and early detection can die quickly and others with later stage detection and high gleason scores can survive along time...I think its great 411 and well worth posting.
My concern would be that people who read it either delay/avoid screening or making a tough choice if they have it based on potentially incomplete advice.
My own thoughts are as follows, if you have a high gleason score and early detection I would not mess around with it and would follow the course of action recommended by a good oncologist/urologist team based on the statistical probabilities as they relate to you. Get it while its localized, hit it hard and kill it...
If it got detected "late" (digitally) then your already at higher risk, but statistically its more likely to be less aggresive if you had regular PSA screening. Here I personally belief that later stage lower gleason suggests more aggresive treatment (again its likely local)...but once you get into later stage higher gleason then the cats out of the bag and if its spread then I think a host of less traditional treatments are certainly worth considering.
If your over 40 and have any history you should have both a digital exam and PSA test every year IMO. Even if you dont you should get both at 45 and then regular screening at 50. If you have a high PSA or "bump" then you need to get a biopsy in a reasonable time frame and act according to the gleason score....but realize that the proximity of the prostrate to the hip makes the transition to a form of bone cancer very fast and that is the leading cause of death for prostate cancer.
I had been running a 7.2 PSA for a few years. when I had the first biospy there were no bumps nor cancer. About 2 years later PSA had jumped to 9.5 another biospy found 2 spots cancerous, within 2 weeks I had it removed and the cancer hadn't jumped to the lymph system, that was the good part.Now I run 0.1 PSA It's been a slow process, but things are now starting to work better for the fun part. With me vitiam V,C or L didn't work hardly at all. Course I still had fun with Diana, thanks sweetheart.
1) Actually, there are many different lines of prostate cancer. According to Peter Scardino, a leading urologist, tumors take 6-12 years to escape the gland and metastasize. Some tumors are more stable than others, but what I think you meant to say is that as the tumor develops, it has the tendency to become more unstable over a long peiod of time.
There is statistically a 7% chance of micro-metastasis, but Scardino hypothesizes that number is due to larger needles previously used for prostate biopsies. That number is probably more like 3-4% using current technology.
2) I think you were thinking of Dan Fogelberg, not John Fogerty.
3) It's "Gleason", not "Gibson".
-- Modified on 5/4/2008 11:54:35 AM