New to the group

Hi NW and welcome

Looks quite good really, low psa, low(ish) Gleeson with only 2 cores from biopsy showing cancer.

Active  surveillance looks ok at the moment, shame that u have to wait 6 months for the MRI though.

MRI would give a better indication of exactly what is going on.

Just for info I was on AS for 4 years, it worked out OK.

Best wishes

Steve

Hello, Grundo.

Thank you, very much. Although the findings weren't what I had hoped (obviously, I hoped for an "all clear"), the very low score is a positive.

My urologist made one interesting comment during our discussion, on Monday. He said that the presence of cancer cells (at that level) probably had/have nothing to do with the elevated PSA readings, and it is probably more so coincidental that we were able to find it. During the biopsy he also measured my prostate gland, and found it to be 42 cm. He stated that the slightly-enlarged prostate is more likely the explanation for the elevated PSA readings. I did notice in the report that there were no abnormal findings from the ultrasound.

The MRI is step 1 in the plan of active surveillance, which is why he put it to 6 months out. I see your point in stating that the MRI will better clarify the situation with the malignant cells. Just guessing.... I presume he feels the situation is not critical to do so at the moment (??), and is content to do it in six months. He did say that dependent upon the outcome of the MRI we would determine our next step(s).

Thank you for sharing your personal experience, having been on active surveillance for 4 years and it being a positive outcome is encouraging. That is kind of my train of thought in deciding that I want to go that route (active surveillance... with the doctor's blessing, of course). The issues that arise with prostate removal are, at some level, a certainty. I figured that as long as the current situation is not at any form of a threatening level, we can put off surgery until it becomes more necessary. I can deal with the effects of prostate removal at that time.

This is one thing I am also going to discuss with my GP in a couple of weeks (getting his feedback/opinion on taking this direction). I have a great level of trust in my GP, and I know I will get very wise input from him. I'm keeping him in the loop through the duration, and he wants me to do so.

Thank you, again, for your feedback. I am very grateful!

The key issue is where the cells are in respect to the capsule edge.  If no where near edge then surveillance a good option.

However don’t be afraid of surgery, whilst it has it’s issues hopefully done early enough doesn’t need to be drastic.  I had surgery and limited incontinance and erectile function recovering with assistance 

Thank you, so much, for your reply.

My urologist went over several factors that can come with surgery. Possible incontinence (for some period of time) was one. He brought up the Kegel exercise topic. He also stated that their goal, in regards to possible erectile function, was to be at 80% of what it is prior to surgery. He said it could be as low as 50%, but 80% is their target. He went into some detail about where the nerves are located, how they are lifted off of the side of the prostate, and how their goal is to not cause any damage.

I guess I'll know a lot more when I have my MRI. This is going to be a journey, for certain. But I'm good with it, come what may.

Thank you, again, for your response and sharing info.