This has to be unethical

I don't know how much pressure your hospital is under.  With my biopsy I was rung up 2 weeks later by a nurse and asked if I could come in that day and she told me. It took another 3 weeks to see the Consultant, although I had scans just 3 days after the biopsy.   Post op I've found the hospital gets behind and then holds evening clinics to catch up although now my next is an evening telephone call with a nurse.

In your case you might think that getting an appointment with an oncologist is telling you the result and leaving you guessing and unable to ask questions.  It seems like poor practice and I'd be wanting to ring up the secretary of the Urologist and ask to speak to someone who can confirm what you're guessing.  After that you might think waiting under 2 more weeks to see a specialist isn't that long but we don't know your full diagnosis.

That's assuming you've had your scans and perhaps you know something about their results.  If you haven't had them then they are working slowly and they should be ringing you with scan appointments.

There isn't much in your profile. Regards

Edited by member 05 Mar 2019 at 15:57  | Reason: Not specified

Thanks John, 

I agree with you that having to wait 6 weeks to be informed of my biopsy results is not ethical. It feels like a cruel time, but I know I'm not alone. What I said was that it's unethical to me to be informed by a letter like I was. 

I got a letter telling me that an apt had been made for me to see a consultant who I had not seen before. I googled his name and discovered that he was a  surgeon who specialised in prostate cancer. From that I concluded that I had prostate cancer. Within an hour of getting the letter I received a phone call from tha hospital asking me when I could come for a bone scan. At that point I thought not only do I have prostate cancer, I have advanced prostate cancer. I was unable to get any confirmation of the biopsy results or why the bone scan was necessary despite several calls to my GP and the hospital. Eventually I gave up and just waited for my apt with the surgeon. He confirmed that I had prostate cancer but went on to say that all indications were that the treatment would be curative since the cancer was confined to the prostate. The bone scan was routine to confirm that there had been no spread although given my low PSA this was considered very unlikely. I have since had surgery which is very likely to have been curative. A bit of communication between the biopsy and my meeting with the surgeon would have resulted in a lot less stress and worry for me and my family. The surgeon was surprised that I had not been told anything. It would appear that administrative failings are causing a lot of avoidable stress and worry to patients.

Edited by member 05 Mar 2019 at 17:14  | Reason: Not specified

Andy, I was in a similar position to you: PSA 32 but biopsy showed mainly Gleason 3+3 with a small amount of 3+4. I had a full skeletal MRI scan, which my consultant said was the "gold standard" for detecting bone mets, and it came back clear.

The concern in my case was undetectable spread into the lymph nodes as a potential reason for the high PSA, so I was strongly advised to go down the HT/RT route. 6 months on 150mg/day bicalutamide, followed by a "wide area" RT to irradiate both the prostate and surrounding lymph nodes. I'm currently half way through my RT. HT will continue for a total of 2 years.

Cheers,

Chris

Edited by member 05 Mar 2019 at 18:35  | Reason: Not specified