Howard, enjoy the fact that you have the time and ability to produce some continuing conversations about some of these topics. I still get the feeling that these guys in Germany didn't get a good run down on options and alternatives. I am also wondering if once a person is diagnosised with prostate cancer that means they have prostate cancer cells floating around in their bodies?? Have to run, I'll try and return to this later today. mason
In one way this is hard to understand in a continent where transperineal biopsy is readily, and preferably, available. However, the recent trumpeting (sales calls) by the industry of newer diagnostics can lead to false assumptions about the improvements those tests bring. This example calls into question the accuracy of those tests; "Before surgery, the patients had PI-RADS of 4 or higher and PSMA-PET scores of 5 or higher on a 5-point scale." [Time for Panic City, "Get it out of me"!]
But post op the evidence was quite different; "The small group had Gleason 3+4 (favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer or higher) in post-surgical biopsies."
(If I'm understanding the post correctly, Howard.)
Tim, I typoed. I recall it should be PET scores of 4 or higher. 4 of 5 sounds bad enough. I will check and correct. My fingers got away from me. Sorry,
Thanks, Tim. Countries may vary in Europe re biopsies. I know Norway outpaces Sweden in transperineal use (penetration?). Not sure where Germany fits in. But I am reporting the study and editorial the way they read to me. The whole thing gobsmacked me. I didn't see a psychological breaddown (no pun) on these patients. Howard
Howard, enjoy the fact that you have the time and ability to produce some continuing conversations about some of these topics. I still get the feeling that these guys in Germany didn't get a good run down on options and alternatives. I am also wondering if once a person is diagnosised with prostate cancer that means they have prostate cancer cells floating around in their bodies?? Have to run, I'll try and return to this later today. mason
Ken, Thanks. Who says I have time? You do. At this point, it's costing me time and "treasure." Howard
The German doctor told me these patients were strongly advised not to do this, but the patients were adamant. HW
In one way this is hard to understand in a continent where transperineal biopsy is readily, and preferably, available. However, the recent trumpeting (sales calls) by the industry of newer diagnostics can lead to false assumptions about the improvements those tests bring. This example calls into question the accuracy of those tests; "Before surgery, the patients had PI-RADS of 4 or higher and PSMA-PET scores of 5 or higher on a 5-point scale." [Time for Panic City, "Get it out of me"!]
But post op the evidence was quite different; "The small group had Gleason 3+4 (favorable intermediate-risk prostate cancer or higher) in post-surgical biopsies."
(If I'm understanding the post correctly, Howard.)
Tim, I typoed. I recall it should be PET scores of 4 or higher. 4 of 5 sounds bad enough. I will check and correct. My fingers got away from me. Sorry,
Thanks, Tim. Countries may vary in Europe re biopsies. I know Norway outpaces Sweden in transperineal use (penetration?). Not sure where Germany fits in. But I am reporting the study and editorial the way they read to me. The whole thing gobsmacked me. I didn't see a psychological breaddown (no pun) on these patients. Howard