I'm a bit confused about ruling out biopsies. No matter how wonderful the imagining may be, surely only biopsies and histology can give a Gleason score. We've had several blokes on here whose MRIs were pirads 5 yet the suspicious areas were benign.
Numerous people have posted their MRI scan result and we've always advised them only a biopsy can confirm or negate cancer and how aggressive it's likely to be. There is also research now taking place to actually examine the genetic make up of the cancer cells to see if they are more or less likely to spread. Surely that can't be advanced without biopsies.
Apparently the very small sample of 25 men from the German trial, who had surgery without biopsies, had refused biopsies. It appears it was luck more than judgement that they all had cancer. A similar sample of 11 men in China revealed that unfortunately one of them had a benign tumour.
https://sperlingprostatecenter.com/a-prostatectomy-without-having-a-biopsy/#:~:text=Refusing%20a%20biopsy,suspicion%E2%80%9D%20for%20localized%20prostate%20cancer.&text=These%20findings%20qualified%20the%20patients,prostate%2C%20cancer%20and%20all%E2%80%9D?
I had a transrectal biopsy late 2020. 2 years later when they discovered significant disease progression. I was advised to have a follow up transperineal biopsy done under general anaesthetic. I was told it would be far more accurate than the first.
Edited by member 15 Jun 2025 at 22:34
| Reason: Additional text