Grading

Mx usually means that they have yet to confirm what the number should be, as you say,  because it was not a whole body scan then it  cannot positively say that there is no spread to distant areas.

Are they planning to give you a full-body MRI, bone scan and/or PET scan?

In this context, half a scan isn't really better than none, though I suppose a clear chest/abdomen is a start!

When I was initially diagnosed I only had a MRI scan covering the pelvic area 

That should show any problems within the gland and just outside. Your CT  seems clear, what prompted the scan?

U don't say what your PSA is , this can give some clues especially in your case because of the the clear scan 

Steve

Steve,

The 'M' is metastases, distant spread, rather than in and around the gland. It can't be confirmed without whole body scans, as PCa is capable of spreading pretty much anywhere.

Mx isn't unusual during the investigations phase, but it will need to be confirmed before treatment decisions can be made.

Heinous

I  get u what u are saying,  really just trying to understand the reason behind the scan and also PSA figure.

Does a CAT scan give as much info as a MRI .

MRI normally seems to be first port of call after DRE or raised PSA.

Cheers 

Steve

Once you know there's a PCa, usually following a biopsy, treatment options are largely determined by Gleason (how aggressive the cancer is) and TNM.

Tumour is about where in the prostate the cancer is, and whether it has erupted through the capsule, plus what Gleason tells you.

Nodes is about whether the cancer has reached nearby lymph nodes (by direct spread through the lymphatic system). I think a CT can see that, but....

Metastases. are about distant spread (IE via the blood circulation) as we know, bones is very common, but it can be pretty much anywhere.

Only 'whole body' scans can rule out metastases.

My knowledge of scans is not the best, so if others know better, chip in, but I think a combination of MRI and bone scan can usually do the job pretty well, though no scans are perfect, and they can miss microscopic Mets.

When looking at recurrence, PET scans seem to be the best way.

PSA is good for raising alarm bells, leading to a diagnosis. But PSA is notoriously unreliable, and cancer can and does appear without a raised PSA, while a very high PSA usually, but not always, flags a cancer.

Once you have the diagnosis, PSA alone is not useful at all, BUT *rises* in PSA can show there's a new problem, or that (for example) hormones have stopped working. And a *fall* in PSA can often tell you that a treatment is working.

But you can rarely be sure on two PSAs; you really need at least three tests to be sure of a fall or rise (because PSA is so unreliable).

The *RATE* of rise or fall can also be important: a fast rise suggests a serious worry.

I hope all that made sense!

That all makes sense H but I think that at this stage there is not enough info to go on.in Golfbuddie's case.

Best wishes

No. Not until he's had whole body scans. I'm sure they'll be arranged soon if not already.

the scan you need is a pet psma with gallium 68 but this will generally only pick up tumours larger than half a centimetre.

I have just been at a clinic where they say they can sometimes see down as low as .30 cm.

It is definitely worth doing a pet psma if available .