Just joined, looking for some advice

Thanks Chris

Have read a little about template biopsy, just unsure what the necessity for one is if my initial biopsy showed I had a T1c tumour.

Hopefully it'll provide my specialist with a more complete picture of my cancer

Cheers

Alistair

Old Barry here read that some doctors are saying another term should now be used for Gleason 6, as the words “The Big C” strike fear and dread into people. Understandable of course, but how dangerous it is depends on what kind of ”C” it is and what stage it’s at.

You may or not be reassured that if you had critical illness insurance with, say, Aviva, they would not pay out on a Gleason 6 as it is not classed as ‘life-threatening’.

Best of luck, anyway.

Cheers, John.

Cheers John

I did reply to your situation to which you referred on another thread. Have you found the time to listen to the talk I linked to and recommended?

The thought raised by Tykey is worthy of consideration. Also, John noted that I had said that there was a move ahead to stop Gleason 6 as being considered as cancer. The proposal is to term it as IDLE, which stands for Indolent Lesion of Epithelial origin.

This is an abstract from a well referenced paper on the subject of treatment and overdiagnosis :- Abstract

A vast range of disorders—from indolent to fast-growing lesions—are labelled as cancer. Therefore, we believe that several changes should be made to the approach to cancer screening and care, such as use of new terminology for indolent and precancerous disorders. We propose the term indolent lesion of epithelial origin, or IDLE, for those lesions (currently labelled as cancers) and their precursors that are unlikely to cause harm if they are left untreated. Furthermore, precursors of cancer or high-risk disorders should not have the term cancer in them. The rationale for this change in approach is that indolent lesions with low malignant potential are common, and screening brings indolent lesions and their precursors to clinical attention, which leads to overdiagnosis and, if unrecognised, possible overtreatment. To minimise that potential, new strategies should be adopted to better define and manage IDLEs. Screening guidelines should be revised to lower the chance of detection of minimal-risk IDLEs and inconsequential cancers with the same energy traditionally used to increase the sensitivity of screening tests. Changing the terminology for some of the lesions currently referred to as cancer will allow physicians to shift medicolegal notions and perceived risk to reflect the evolving understanding of biology, be more judicious about when a biopsy should be done, and organise studies and registries that offer observation or less invasive approaches for indolent disease. Emphasis on avoidance of harm while assuring benefit will improve screening and treatment of patients and will be equally effective in the prevention of death from cancer.

Taken from this paper which includes also includes a specific heading for Prostate :- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4322920/

Hold on a minute Alistair

How were you diagnosed with G3+3 and a clinical staging of T1c without a biopsy? Have you had an earlier biopsy. If so they might want to do an MRI to see if the Cancer is detectable and the leasion confined or has capsular contact to help assist in a watchful waiting approach. There are plenty of alternate options for a T1c to consider

Fresh

Edited by member 21 Aug 2018 at 22:15  | Reason: Not specified

Why do they need the second biopsy. You have everything you need to define a treatment path. They must have explained that to you.

Fresh

When my husband was diagnosed with a G6 (3+3) and recommended a. radical prostatectomy we found this an interesting read:

Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: An Essential Guide to Managing Prostate Cancer for Patients and Their Families

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1590515153/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_wSEFBb6ZJ5XXK

Also the results of the ProtecT trial from this site are interesting for a low risk diagnosis.

My husbands diagnostic route did involve a MPmri scan and a template biopsy and with his dad dying from prostate cancer a few months before diagnosis I would not have been happy to pick a treatment route wthout these so it sounds sensible to have the offered second biopsy to confirm the diagnosis.

Good luck

Clare

Edited by member 23 Aug 2018 at 00:21  | Reason: Not specified