Re: University of Chicago?

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

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?

[Guest guest]

,

I did not use Uni of Chi,though I considered their programs. I went to Dr.

Nadler at Northwestern Medical Center.

Ultimately had robotic (DaVinci) RP in September 2007.

I was (and continue to be) very satisfied with level of care, patient support

and outcomes. I would be happy to discuss if interested.

Good luck on whatever path you choose.

>Has anyone had experience with University of Chicago Urology, and

>specifically Dr. Zagaja? I live in rural Michigan and I am

>thinking of going there to have my biopsy slides read by another

>pathologist and to get a second opinion on my condition. I feel that

>by going there I might get a more wide-ranging set of opinions rather

>than the rather narrow one I got from my local urologist. Also, I

>retired from Chicago and have relatives there. Last week I went to a

>seminar at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center in Westmont where they

>do brachytherapy. It was interesting to hear from men who had done

>this.

>Just diagnosed, 67 years old, Gleason 3+3, T1c, Psa 5.1.

>Thank you very much.

> Beres

[Guest guest]

,

I did not use Uni of Chi,though I considered their programs. I went to Dr.

Nadler at Northwestern Medical Center.

Ultimately had robotic (DaVinci) RP in September 2007.

I was (and continue to be) very satisfied with level of care, patient support

and outcomes. I would be happy to discuss if interested.

Good luck on whatever path you choose.

>Has anyone had experience with University of Chicago Urology, and

>specifically Dr. Zagaja? I live in rural Michigan and I am

>thinking of going there to have my biopsy slides read by another

>pathologist and to get a second opinion on my condition. I feel that

>by going there I might get a more wide-ranging set of opinions rather

>than the rather narrow one I got from my local urologist. Also, I

>retired from Chicago and have relatives there. Last week I went to a

>seminar at the Chicago Prostate Cancer Center in Westmont where they

>do brachytherapy. It was interesting to hear from men who had done

>this.

>Just diagnosed, 67 years old, Gleason 3+3, T1c, Psa 5.1.

>Thank you very much.

> Beres

[Guest guest]

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]