RE: Re: University of Chicago?

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure how they send slide information. But I assume they make

an image of each, or perhaps several of each, and send these by email.

As for the active surveillance, I'm considering it, but I am concerned

about the biopsy pathology. I had 30 cores taken, 5 in each of six

areas. Here is the exact wording of the report of those six areas:

Left base: Benign prostate.

Left mid: High-grade PIN, negative for malignancy

Left apex: High-grade PIN, negative for malignancy

Right base: High-grade PIN, negative for malignancy

Right mid: High-grade PIN, negative for malignancy

Right apex: Postatic andenocarcinoma, Gleason's 3 + 3 = 6 involving

three of five core biopsies (20%, 30%, 30%). The tumor cells form a

2.5 mm circumscribed aggregate. Perineural invasion is absent.

I wonder if anyone in the group has an opinion as to the High-grade

PIN and the cancer percentages in the involved biopsies.

Thanks,

> Dear ,

>

> I agree with the suggestion that active surveillance is an option you should

> consider. My situation was similar to yours seven years ago. I have been

> watching the situation, and it has not gotten worse. I'm happy I didn't

> jump right into treatment.

>

> As for getting a second opinion on your slides, I hadn't heard of doing

> that. It might not be a bad idea. I have a question, though. My biopsy

> was performed in Spokane, WA, and I had results in a couple of days from a

> lab in Oklahoma City. How did they do that? Surely the sample didn't

> travel all that way, did it? Do they stain the slides locally and e-mail

> them to HQ? Or was the work done locally and they just used the Oklahoma

> letterhead?

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> There are just two rules for this group

> 1 No Spam

> 2 Be kind to others

>

> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot

> and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other

> options.

>

> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

I may be able to shed some light on the second opinion procedure of slides. My husband had a second opinion from s Hopkins in Baltimore. What we were told at the time was insurance will pay or a second opinion.

The facility you had the biopsy in or the lab actually (ours was a medical facility/teaching hospital) has your actual biopsy cores. They have what is called a block- (don't know further about that).

They take thin slices from this block and place them on slides with some sort of procedure and there you have slides of different pieces of tissue. They will actually make up the slides per request.

They will ship that to another facility for a second opinion. The tissue block actually belongs to you. We needed tissue unprocessed for type testing and had another doctor get our block for us ... there's a lot that's being done these days as far as type testing, tumor testing that will help determine what type of meds the cells respond to. You can most likely google this. Or, in some cases for vaccines.

But, as far as a second opinion- it did help us not to question the initial reports. It's not a bad idea.

grace> Dear ,>> I agree with the suggestion that active surveillance is an option you should> consider. My situation was similar to yours seven years ago. I have been> watching the situation, and it has not gotten worse. I'm happy I didn't> jump right into treatment.>> As for getting a second opinion on your slides, I hadn't heard of doing> that. It might not be a bad idea. I have a question, though. My biopsy> was performed in Spokane, WA, and I had results in a couple of days from a> lab in Oklahoma City. How did they do that? Surely the sample didn't> travel all that way, did it? Do they stain the slides locally and e-mail> them to

HQ? Or was the work done locally and they just used the Oklahoma> letterhead?>>>>>> ------------------------------------>> There are just two rules for this group> 1 No Spam> 2 Be kind to others>> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot> and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other> options.>> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Jim for the information and best of luck on your active

surveillance. In my case I'm concerned about the 3 cores positive and

the percentages. If another read of the samples showed completely

benign, this could change my mind.

Chuck, I'm thinking of having a pathology on slides done at University

of Chicago. Because of the prestige of U of C wouldn't I be able to

assume that this would be a reliable and objective read? For example,

at least they should show positive in the same three cores. What do

you thinnk?

>

> Dear Beres,

>

> I wouldn't presume to make recommendations as to whether you should opt for

> active surveillance or proceed directly to treatment. I can pass on my own

> record to show that active surveillance was the right choice for me, at

> least so far. It's a tough choice. A lot of it probably depends on how

> comfortable you can be living with the anxiety. Here is my data for

> whatever illumination you and others helping you may gain from it.

>

>

> 1992 PSA 0.58

> 1996 PSA 1.0

> 11/2001 PSA 0.83

> 11/2002 PSA 1.0

> 11/2003 PSA 2.2

>

> 12/2003 Biopsy = Left Apex showed focal glandular atrophy; Right Mid showed

> High Grade PIN; All other sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age

> 65]

>

> 06/2004 Biopsy = Left Base showed focal chronic prostatitis & scarring;

> Right Base showed Adenocarcinoma comprising 9% [1 mm] with predicted Gleason

> score of 3+3. All other sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age 66]

>

> 11/2004 PSA 0.8

> 01/2005 PSA 0.8

> 04/2006 PSA 1.7

> 10/2006 PSA 2.8

>

> 10/2006 Biopsy = All sites were benign [Total of 12 samples at age 68]

>

> 03/2007 PSA 1.2

> 11/2007 PSA 1.0

> 03/2008 PSA 1.2

> 11/2008 PSA 1.0

> 04/2009 PSA 1.11

> 10/2009 PSA 2.06

> 02/2010 PSA 1.33

> 08/2010 PSA 7.86

>

> 09/2010 Biopsy = High Grade PIN in Left Mid, Left Apex, & Right Base; Other

> sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age 72]

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> There are just two rules for this group

> 1 No Spam

> 2 Be kind to others

>

> Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

> different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

> men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

> choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot

> and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other

> options.

>

> Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

> Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

Hello again . What do I think? I think the pathologists I listed earlier. Much more skilled. Chuck " What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others. " (Chuck) Maack/Prostate Cancer Advocate/Mentor Wichita, Kansas Chapter, Us TOOBiography: http://www.ustoowichita.org/leaders.cfm?content=bio & id=1 Email: maack1@... Chapter Website " Observations " : http://www.ustoowichita.org/observations.cfm From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of BeresSent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 4:17 PMTo: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Re: University of Chicago? Thank you, Jim for the information and best of luck on your activesurveillance. In my case I'm concerned about the 3 cores positive andthe percentages. If another read of the samples showed completelybenign, this could change my mind.Chuck, I'm thinking of having a pathology on slides done at Universityof Chicago. Because of the prestige of U of C wouldn't I be able toassume that this would be a reliable and objective read? For example,at least they should show positive in the same three cores. What doyou thinnk?>> Dear Beres,>> I wouldn't presume to make recommendations as to whether you should opt for> active surveillance or proceed directly to treatment. I can pass on my own> record to show that active surveillance was the right choice for me, at> least so far. It's a tough choice. A lot of it probably depends on how> comfortable you can be living with the anxiety. Here is my data for> whatever illumination you and others helping you may gain from it.>>> 1992 PSA 0.58> 1996 PSA 1.0> 11/2001 PSA 0.83> 11/2002 PSA 1.0> 11/2003 PSA 2.2>> 12/2003 Biopsy = Left Apex showed focal glandular atrophy; Right Mid showed> High Grade PIN; All other sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age> 65]>> 06/2004 Biopsy = Left Base showed focal chronic prostatitis & scarring;> Right Base showed Adenocarcinoma comprising 9% [1 mm] with predicted Gleason> score of 3+3. All other sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age 66]>> 11/2004 PSA 0.8> 01/2005 PSA 0.8> 04/2006 PSA 1.7> 10/2006 PSA 2.8>> 10/2006 Biopsy = All sites were benign [Total of 12 samples at age 68]>> 03/2007 PSA 1.2> 11/2007 PSA 1.0> 03/2008 PSA 1.2> 11/2008 PSA 1.0> 04/2009 PSA 1.11> 10/2009 PSA 2.06> 02/2010 PSA 1.33> 08/2010 PSA 7.86>> 09/2010 Biopsy = High Grade PIN in Left Mid, Left Apex, & Right Base; Other> sites were benign. [Total of 12 samples at age 72].