This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Having had a radical prostatectomy 2 years ago I am acutely aware of this awful disease. This year I have received Christmas Cards from 4 more friends who have been diagnosed over the last year, ages ranging from 49 to 70. All are fit outdoor types into hill walking, swimming and kayaking.
So guys, if you have any suspicions (one of the most common is regularly having to get up to pee during the night) or have a family history of it, get yourselves checked out. Like breast cancer in women, prostrate cancer is one of the biggest causes of early death in men, but it generally CAN be cured IF it is caught in time. If you think you could have it, DONT ignore it, go see your GP.
So guys, if you have any suspicions (one of the most common is regularly having to get up to pee during the night) or have a family history of it, get yourselves checked out. Like breast cancer in women, prostrate cancer is one of the biggest causes of early death in men, but it generally CAN be cured IF it is caught in time. If you think you could have it, DONT ignore it, go see your GP.
2
In reply to Trangia:
Thanks for the reminder, I had one of those PSA tests a couple of years ago (I'm 60+at that sort of age) and must ask for another soon, kind of thing we tend to ignore. My cousin was diagnosed last year and operated on, caught in time.
New Years resolution!
Thanks for the reminder, I had one of those PSA tests a couple of years ago (I'm 60+at that sort of age) and must ask for another soon, kind of thing we tend to ignore. My cousin was diagnosed last year and operated on, caught in time.
New Years resolution!
2
In reply to Trangia:
Even though I'm only 45 I'm having my first check-up on Monday, it is the major killer in my family.
Even though I'm only 45 I'm having my first check-up on Monday, it is the major killer in my family.
2
In reply to Trangia: Hubby diagnosed 10 years ago Had hormone treatment and radiotherapy only. Now 10 years later needs hormone treatment again But 2 injections have reduced his PSA from 27 to 6 So you men don't be afraid it can be controlled!!!!!
In reply to Trangia:
I've been peeing a lot recently (Day and night time) So had mine checked two weeks ago. PSA test was good so had to have the finger. All fine there as well, thankfully. Must be the colder weather. Blood pressure is a little high as well.
I'll be 50 soon.
I've been peeing a lot recently (Day and night time) So had mine checked two weeks ago. PSA test was good so had to have the finger. All fine there as well, thankfully. Must be the colder weather. Blood pressure is a little high as well.
I'll be 50 soon.
Post edited at 15:19
In reply to Trangia:
Trangia knows my story and I can only echo his words - the blood test and a few moments of embarrassment can save your life guys....DO IT!!!
Trangia knows my story and I can only echo his words - the blood test and a few moments of embarrassment can save your life guys....DO IT!!!
1
In reply to Trangia:
Just to balance this thread a little, PSA is a poor test, neither very specific (ie if the test is negative that you don't actually have it) or sensitive (ie if it is positive that you actually have the disease.)
2 big studies to sort out whether screening with PSA works completely failed to settle it, one said no, one yes, but neither were perfectly designed, and the one that said yes had a calculated cost of $5mill US to save one cancer death (health economics of screening is a whole other argument.)
The problem is that it is best to consider prostate ca like 2 seperate conditions: a faster aggressive disease that can kill you, and a slow growing version that you die with, not because of. 31% of men over the age 50 have prostate ca found at post mortem, as a incidental finding mostly.
Currently we can't really tell the difference between the 2 without quite invasive tests, which have potential side effects.
But it's the more aggressive cases that get publicised and inform public opinion.
Symptoms are also not such a great indicator either: most will be a benign condition called BPH. As I understand it, the cancers often start on the outside of the prostate and produce symptoms later.
I don't really mean to take away from the message of being aware of symptoms and discussing if you have concerns, but it is important to be aware that it is not clear cut and that there is no great screening test for it, yet.
Just to balance this thread a little, PSA is a poor test, neither very specific (ie if the test is negative that you don't actually have it) or sensitive (ie if it is positive that you actually have the disease.)
2 big studies to sort out whether screening with PSA works completely failed to settle it, one said no, one yes, but neither were perfectly designed, and the one that said yes had a calculated cost of $5mill US to save one cancer death (health economics of screening is a whole other argument.)
The problem is that it is best to consider prostate ca like 2 seperate conditions: a faster aggressive disease that can kill you, and a slow growing version that you die with, not because of. 31% of men over the age 50 have prostate ca found at post mortem, as a incidental finding mostly.
Currently we can't really tell the difference between the 2 without quite invasive tests, which have potential side effects.
But it's the more aggressive cases that get publicised and inform public opinion.
Symptoms are also not such a great indicator either: most will be a benign condition called BPH. As I understand it, the cancers often start on the outside of the prostate and produce symptoms later.
I don't really mean to take away from the message of being aware of symptoms and discussing if you have concerns, but it is important to be aware that it is not clear cut and that there is no great screening test for it, yet.
In reply to damowilk:
I guess there isn't a lot of funding for it - I think has less than half the funding per case than breast cancer, for example.
I guess there isn't a lot of funding for it - I think has less than half the funding per case than breast cancer, for example.
In reply to damowilk:
So, given what you're saying, whats your solution to diagnosing PC??
I do agree with you to a point about the test, but unless you want the hard pressed and under-funded NHS to fund CT and MRI scans for all males over 40!! Unless I've missed something in your post, I guess its still the best indicator us blokes have got........
Like Trangia, I've been there, done it and unfortunately I've got the t-shirt and am still having blood test for my PSA 30-months post treatment.
The test could and will save lives!
> Just to balance this thread a little, PSA is a poor test, neither very specific (ie if the test is negative that you don't actually have it) or sensitive (ie if it is positive that you actually have the disease.)
So, given what you're saying, whats your solution to diagnosing PC??
I do agree with you to a point about the test, but unless you want the hard pressed and under-funded NHS to fund CT and MRI scans for all males over 40!! Unless I've missed something in your post, I guess its still the best indicator us blokes have got........
Like Trangia, I've been there, done it and unfortunately I've got the t-shirt and am still having blood test for my PSA 30-months post treatment.
The test could and will save lives!
In reply to damowilk:
Well, I think my father's was the less aggressive form - he lived with it for years, with some treatment, but the trouble is, if nothing else gets you, it eventually does. He was a very fit man, so the other killers didn't finish him off, the last few months of his life were not pleasant.
> The problem is that it is best to consider prostate ca like 2 seperate conditions: a faster aggressive disease that can kill you, and a slow growing version that you die with, not because of. 31% of men over the age 50 have prostate ca found at post mortem, as a incidental finding mostly.
Well, I think my father's was the less aggressive form - he lived with it for years, with some treatment, but the trouble is, if nothing else gets you, it eventually does. He was a very fit man, so the other killers didn't finish him off, the last few months of his life were not pleasant.
In reply to bluebealach:
There isn't a solution yet, I wish I had one. It's that common summary in medicine and science: more work is needed.
This is precisely what hasn't been proved yet. It is important that too much authority it not invested in it, and that the conversation about its pitfalls and problems is had with anyone who would like to have it.
> So, given what you're saying, whats your solution to diagnosing PC??
There isn't a solution yet, I wish I had one. It's that common summary in medicine and science: more work is needed.
> The test could and will save lives!
This is precisely what hasn't been proved yet. It is important that too much authority it not invested in it, and that the conversation about its pitfalls and problems is had with anyone who would like to have it.
In reply to damowilk:
so in the mean time your solution to diagnosing Prostate Cancer is??!!!
If I hadn't had this test, maybe I may not have been here now....
Dear Lord, it might not be perfect but its all us guys have.....
so in the mean time your solution to diagnosing Prostate Cancer is??!!!
If I hadn't had this test, maybe I may not have been here now....
Dear Lord, it might not be perfect but its all us guys have.....
In reply to damowilk:
I think there's a danger of confusing using PSA as a screening test, eg giving it to all males over 50, and using it to help diagnose PC in men with symptoms: surely a sensible idea. Your initial post rightly questioned the screening approach (on which this: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening seems a decent summary), but the later post is in danger of saying PSA is so bad it should not be used at all. Surely that's not right, especially as it will be followed by a biopsy (not risk free of course, but pretty low risk). Also, I get the impression that active surveillance is now a more common approach to PC, so it isn't always a case of rushing in with aggressive treatment when it is diagnosed.
I think there's a danger of confusing using PSA as a screening test, eg giving it to all males over 50, and using it to help diagnose PC in men with symptoms: surely a sensible idea. Your initial post rightly questioned the screening approach (on which this: http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthbeat/the-pros-and-cons-of-psa-screening seems a decent summary), but the later post is in danger of saying PSA is so bad it should not be used at all. Surely that's not right, especially as it will be followed by a biopsy (not risk free of course, but pretty low risk). Also, I get the impression that active surveillance is now a more common approach to PC, so it isn't always a case of rushing in with aggressive treatment when it is diagnosed.
In reply to bluebealach:
I think we're slightly at crossed purposes:
Should PSA be used to help diagnose Pros Ca in man with suggestive symptoms; Yes (though I'd argue that it adds some info to a diagnosis suggested by history and exam, it doesn't make the diagnosis)
Should it be used for SCREENING in individuals with no symptoms: no, it doesn't meet any good screening criteria (Wilson Duckitt screening criteria.)
Why not use it for screening: if it causes more overall harm from the amount of additional men needing biopsies and other invasive investigation, without a significant reduction in mortality, at great financial cost.
I think we're slightly at crossed purposes:
Should PSA be used to help diagnose Pros Ca in man with suggestive symptoms; Yes (though I'd argue that it adds some info to a diagnosis suggested by history and exam, it doesn't make the diagnosis)
Should it be used for SCREENING in individuals with no symptoms: no, it doesn't meet any good screening criteria (Wilson Duckitt screening criteria.)
Why not use it for screening: if it causes more overall harm from the amount of additional men needing biopsies and other invasive investigation, without a significant reduction in mortality, at great financial cost.
In reply to Flatus Vetus:
Yikes, I never thought of that, but I probably won't sleep well tonight hoping that nobody say "YES".
When I asked my GP for a PSA test he did explain the situation as above (so that was good), but my cousin had his picked up by a routine PSA test (he lives in Sydney and 5 years older than me), so that was good for him.
Probably for most of us it's a matter of have a test and hope for the best - until there is something better on general offer.
> Can one do the finger test on oneself? If so, what should one be feeling for?
Yikes, I never thought of that, but I probably won't sleep well tonight hoping that nobody say "YES".
When I asked my GP for a PSA test he did explain the situation as above (so that was good), but my cousin had his picked up by a routine PSA test (he lives in Sydney and 5 years older than me), so that was good for him.
Probably for most of us it's a matter of have a test and hope for the best - until there is something better on general offer.
In reply to Flatus Vetus:
The difference between an earlobe and the end of your nose, apparently:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/185ab60e-b625-11e1-a14a-00144feabdc0.html
> Can one do the finger test on oneself? If so, what should one be feeling for?
The difference between an earlobe and the end of your nose, apparently:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/185ab60e-b625-11e1-a14a-00144feabdc0.html
In reply to Mike Redmayne:
Yes, exactly, hopefully I've made this a bit clearer with last post.
Though I think surveillance is the currently chosen best of the available imperfect options trying to pick a middle road between over investigation and missing aggressive cancers, until there's a better option or clearer consensus.
Yes, exactly, hopefully I've made this a bit clearer with last post.
Though I think surveillance is the currently chosen best of the available imperfect options trying to pick a middle road between over investigation and missing aggressive cancers, until there's a better option or clearer consensus.
In reply to Flatus Vetus:
I don't know the answer to either question. I wasn't watching, so I may be wrong, but I think the Dr had his finger facing towards the bladder with the prostate sitting above it, so it would be too much of a contortion on the wrist to do this yourself!
He commented that the prostate felt "gravelly".
I've been following the debate in the Press on the usefulness of the PSA test, but in my case the raised PSA of 8 was suffient for the Consultant to recommend a biopsy (under a local anesthetic). Then followed 2 years of "watchful waiting" with regular blood tests during which time my PSA rose to 11.5. This led to a second biopsy, this time under a general anesthetic as they took many more samples. Following this I was given all the available facts with a recommendation for either radiotherapy or surgery, with dire warnings about complications and unpleasant side effects. I was also told that the cancer appeared to be slow growing and at my age there was a good chance that I'd die from something else before the cancer got me. Against this I was told that if it did develope treatment would become increasingly difficult and less likely to be successful.
It was not an easy decision, but I opted for key hole surgery, and I am glad, because, although the side effects were immediate and unpleasent, 2 years on they have virtually gone now, I fully recovered from the op and am back to leading a normal life ; and most importantly I am alive with a PSA of 0.02 and a good prognosis.
This all goes back to originally going to my GP because I was peeing a lot, particularly getting up several times during the night.
> Can one do the finger test on oneself? If so, what should one be feeling for?
I don't know the answer to either question. I wasn't watching, so I may be wrong, but I think the Dr had his finger facing towards the bladder with the prostate sitting above it, so it would be too much of a contortion on the wrist to do this yourself!
He commented that the prostate felt "gravelly".
I've been following the debate in the Press on the usefulness of the PSA test, but in my case the raised PSA of 8 was suffient for the Consultant to recommend a biopsy (under a local anesthetic). Then followed 2 years of "watchful waiting" with regular blood tests during which time my PSA rose to 11.5. This led to a second biopsy, this time under a general anesthetic as they took many more samples. Following this I was given all the available facts with a recommendation for either radiotherapy or surgery, with dire warnings about complications and unpleasant side effects. I was also told that the cancer appeared to be slow growing and at my age there was a good chance that I'd die from something else before the cancer got me. Against this I was told that if it did develope treatment would become increasingly difficult and less likely to be successful.
It was not an easy decision, but I opted for key hole surgery, and I am glad, because, although the side effects were immediate and unpleasent, 2 years on they have virtually gone now, I fully recovered from the op and am back to leading a normal life ; and most importantly I am alive with a PSA of 0.02 and a good prognosis.
This all goes back to originally going to my GP because I was peeing a lot, particularly getting up several times during the night.
1
In reply to Trangia:
Get one regularly. It's the only time I've considered paying ($70.00) to have a man stick his finger up there.
Get one regularly. It's the only time I've considered paying ($70.00) to have a man stick his finger up there.
1
In reply to damowilk:
It doesn't really matter whether one has the blood test for PSA or the rectal examination, I think both are done in tandem anyway, so I would agree that 'screening' per se may not be the way forward, but for those with any symptoms whatsoever, I think that they are a given.
Trangia, good to hear that all appears to be well and your PSA is well down. Mine is down to a similar level although I went via the other route but with a PSA of 28 and a Gleason score of 8 together with my age, they deemed it to be the best course of action.
Bottom line is guys, never worry about the why's and wherefores, if you suspect anything at all.....get it done!!!
> I think we're slightly at crossed purposes:
> Should PSA be used to help diagnose Pros Ca in man with suggestive symptoms; Yes
> Should it be used for SCREENING in individuals with no symptoms: no,
It doesn't really matter whether one has the blood test for PSA or the rectal examination, I think both are done in tandem anyway, so I would agree that 'screening' per se may not be the way forward, but for those with any symptoms whatsoever, I think that they are a given.
Trangia, good to hear that all appears to be well and your PSA is well down. Mine is down to a similar level although I went via the other route but with a PSA of 28 and a Gleason score of 8 together with my age, they deemed it to be the best course of action.
Bottom line is guys, never worry about the why's and wherefores, if you suspect anything at all.....get it done!!!
1
In reply to Trangia:
I look forward to an awkward conversation with my dad over Christmas. Better to have an awkward moment than the other. Thanks and take care all.
I look forward to an awkward conversation with my dad over Christmas. Better to have an awkward moment than the other. Thanks and take care all.
1
1
In reply to stroppygob:
The last time I had this done it was a gorgeous female doctor that did it, nearest thing I'd had to penetrative sex for years
The last time I had this done it was a gorgeous female doctor that did it, nearest thing I'd had to penetrative sex for years
1
In reply to Trangia:
the PSa test is'nt a test for cancer but basically indicates inflammation in the prostate however it is a good starting point to see if further investigation is required.
I had a prostate infection for a while (and that's a nightmare as well involving 18 months of antibiotics before it was resolved) which caused a very high PSA . The doctor wished to test for cancer but the consultant wouldn't do the 6 core biopsy as basically he said that sticking needles into an infected prostate was asking for trouble. My understanding is that even with MRI & CAT scans it is difficult to pick up cancer in the prostate area. I has a series of ultrasounds of the area via a probe to rule out cancer.
Best wishes to all, and as said, get tested, the embarrassment of a finger up the jacksie pales into insignificance compared to the alternative.
the PSa test is'nt a test for cancer but basically indicates inflammation in the prostate however it is a good starting point to see if further investigation is required.
I had a prostate infection for a while (and that's a nightmare as well involving 18 months of antibiotics before it was resolved) which caused a very high PSA . The doctor wished to test for cancer but the consultant wouldn't do the 6 core biopsy as basically he said that sticking needles into an infected prostate was asking for trouble. My understanding is that even with MRI & CAT scans it is difficult to pick up cancer in the prostate area. I has a series of ultrasounds of the area via a probe to rule out cancer.
Best wishes to all, and as said, get tested, the embarrassment of a finger up the jacksie pales into insignificance compared to the alternative.
1
In reply to Trangia:
My poor old dog has had a recurring enlarged prostate. He wasn't mad keen on the treatment, but now he's got the bucket off, he can see where things used to be...
My poor old dog has had a recurring enlarged prostate. He wasn't mad keen on the treatment, but now he's got the bucket off, he can see where things used to be...
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...