On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 09:54:34 +0100, GB wrote:

On 18/10/2016 00:04, Bob Eager wrote:

The last bloody prostate biopsy put me in hospital for 10 days.

I assume you caught an infection, which is not all that surprising,
given that they go through the rectum to do the biopsy. But, it's
supposed to be a rare problem. You were really rather unlucky, I'm
afraid.

Well, one out of three biopsies. But they did have difficulty getting it
all under control.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Cynic wrote

I've been through the system. The story started a couple of years ago
when I decided getting out of bed three or four times a night to pass a
spoonful of urine merited going to the doctors. My gp performed the
lubricated finger test and pronounced my prostate was enlarged. I had a
psa test and was sent for a cat scan and consultant referral to the
hospital. The gp prescribed Tamsulosin (relazes muscles around the
bladder) and the hospital referral began a watch and wait process.
About six months went by and the relief given by the Tamsulosin became
less. The gp added Finasteride (shrinks the prostate) to my medication
and again referred me to the hospital. The Finasteride improved things
for a while then my psa started to rise again. I was sent for an mri
which revealed something amiss in the prostate. As a result I was sent
for a biopsy and a bone scan. Results showed I had an aggressive cancer
within the prostate but fortunately it was still confined within it.

Oh how different hospitals work:

I got picked up on the "well man's" clinic at the doc when I had a PSA
of 6 (it should be under 2, but ramps up to over 50).

(for those that don't know/haven't been offered one, everyone over the
age of 50 should be offered one,

But there is lots of controversy about whether that offer
should be accepted, even amongst the professionals.

All it is the basic checks

blood pressure, diabetes/cholesterol/PSA etc

Nothing special

We're not talking DNA analysis here

and nothing invasive (other than drawing some blood)

That's not the problem, the problem is what they do after
doing those basic checks and find something they dont
like and start doing biopsys and resections when it would
have been better to do nothing.

that's offered as in "we really really think that you should come in for
this")

And that stuff in quotes is irresponsible.

So it's irresponsible to let people with latent age related conditions
walk around un-diagnosed because they are one of these "I never go to the
doctor" types, is it?

Yep, when there are massive downsides with the 'treatment'
of what isnt going to kill you like impotence and incontinence.

On 18/10/2016 21:43, Rod Speed wrote:
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Cynic wrote

I've been through the system. The story started a couple of years
ago when I decided getting out of bed three or four times a night
to pass a spoonful of urine merited going to the doctors. My gp
performed the lubricated finger test and pronounced my prostate was
enlarged. I had a psa test and was sent for a cat scan and
consultant referral to the hospital. The gp prescribed Tamsulosin
(relazes muscles around the bladder) and the hospital referral
began a watch and wait process. About six months went by and the
relief given by the Tamsulosin became less. The gp added
Finasteride (shrinks the prostate) to my medication and again
referred me to the hospital. The Finasteride improved things for a
while then my psa started to rise again. I was sent for an mri
which revealed something amiss in the prostate. As a result I was
sent for a biopsy and a bone scan. Results showed I had an
aggressive cancer within the prostate but fortunately it was still
confined within it.

Oh how different hospitals work:

I got picked up on the "well man's" clinic at the doc when I had a
PSA of 6 (it should be under 2, but ramps up to over 50).

(for those that don't know/haven't been offered one, everyone over
the age of 50 should be offered one,

But there is lots of controversy about whether that offer
should be accepted, even amongst the professionals.

All it is the basic checks

blood pressure, diabetes/cholesterol/PSA etc

Nothing special

We're not talking DNA analysis here

and nothing invasive (other than drawing some blood)

That's not the problem, the problem is what they do after
doing those basic checks and find something they dont
like and start doing biopsys and resections when it would
have been better to do nothing.

My experience was that I was strongly encouraged to have a digital
examination and MRI, neither of which was likely to do me any harm,
although I found them both unpleasant.

I was then offered a choice of whether to have the biopsy or to adopt a
wait-and-see policy. The latter would have involved 6-monthly reviews,
with repeat PSA, digital examination, and MRI. I chose biopsy, as I
thought it was better to know what was growing inside me. Fortunately,
nothing serious.

If only you had been on hand to tell me at the time that it wasn't
serious, Rod, using your diagnostic powers over the internet! Otherwise,
I don't see how I could possibly have known that I would have been
better off doing nothing?

I think that the stats are something like 2 out of 3 biopsies find
nothing cancerous.

You are confusing cancer and BPE, by the way. Resection is to treat BPE.
You'll know if you need one without having a PSA test - you won't be
able to pee!




that's offered as in "we really really think that you should come in
for this")

And that stuff in quotes is irresponsible.

So it's irresponsible to let people with latent age related conditions
walk around un-diagnosed because they are one of these "I never go to
the doctor" types, is it?

Yep, when there are massive downsides with the 'treatment'
of what isnt going to kill you like impotence and incontinence.

Being unable to pee is a major medical problem.

GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Rod Speed wrote
tim... wrote
Cynic wrote

I've been through the system. The story started a couple of years
ago when I decided getting out of bed three or four times a night
to pass a spoonful of urine merited going to the doctors. My gp
performed the lubricated finger test and pronounced my prostate was
enlarged. I had a psa test and was sent for a cat scan and
consultant referral to the hospital. The gp prescribed Tamsulosin
(relazes muscles around the bladder) and the hospital referral
began a watch and wait process. About six months went by and the
relief given by the Tamsulosin became less. The gp added
Finasteride (shrinks the prostate) to my medication and again
referred me to the hospital. The Finasteride improved things for a
while then my psa started to rise again. I was sent for an mri
which revealed something amiss in the prostate. As a result I was
sent for a biopsy and a bone scan. Results showed I had an aggressive
cancer within the prostate but fortunately it was still confined
within it.

Oh how different hospitals work:

I got picked up on the "well man's" clinic at the doc when I had a PSA
of 6 (it should be under 2, but ramps up to over 50).

(for those that don't know/haven't been offered one, everyone over the
age of 50 should be offered one,

But there is lots of controversy about whether that offer
should be accepted, even amongst the professionals.

All it is the basic checks

blood pressure, diabetes/cholesterol/PSA etc

Nothing special

We're not talking DNA analysis here

and nothing invasive (other than drawing some blood)

That's not the problem, the problem is what they do after doing those
basic checks and find something they dont like and start doing biopsys
and resections when it would have been better to do nothing.

My experience was that I was strongly encouraged to have a digital
examination and MRI, neither of which was likely to do me any harm,
although I found them both unpleasant.

Problem is with what is offered after those because those can not
determine if it is an aggressive cancer or just benign enlargement.

I was then offered a choice of whether to have the biopsy or to adopt a
wait-and-see policy. The latter would have involved 6-monthly reviews,
with repeat PSA, digital examination, and MRI. I chose biopsy, as I
thought it was better to know what was growing inside me.

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Fortunately, nothing serious.

If only you had been on hand to tell me at the time that it wasn't
serious, Rod, using your diagnostic powers over the internet!

Never said anything even remotely like that.

The fact is that when the incidence of aggressive cancer is MUCH
lower than the very very common incidence of very slow growing
prostate cancer that the absolute vast bulk of those who have it
will die with from other causes instead of dying from, so many that
do have a biopsy end up with incontence and or impotence or
both that would not have had without any investigation at all.

Otherwise, I don't see how I could possibly have known that I would have
been better off doing nothing?

I think that the stats are something like 2 out of 3 biopsies find nothing
cancerous.

And with those that do find cancer, the absolute vast bulk of those
fine prostate cancer that you will die with from other causes rather
than dying of.

You are confusing cancer and BPE, by the way.

Nope.

Resection is to treat BPE. You'll know if you need one without having a
PSA test - you won't be able to pee!

Utterly mangled all over again.

that's offered as in "we really really think that you should come in
for this")

And that stuff in quotes is irresponsible.

So it's irresponsible to let people with latent age related conditions
walk around un-diagnosed because they are one of these "I never go to
the doctor" types, is it?

Yep, when there are massive downsides with the 'treatment'
of what isnt going to kill you like impotence and incontinence.

Being unable to pee is a major medical problem.

No one is unable to ****.

On 19/10/2016 10:54, Rod Speed wrote:

No one is unable to ****.

A pity you didn't tell me that last year when I spent seven days in
hospital with a urine infection that required catheterisation.

You need to stay out of subjects where your lack of knowledge is dangerous.

--
F

On 19/10/2016 10:54, Rod Speed wrote:

That's not the problem, the problem is what they do after doing those
basic checks and find something they dont like and start doing
biopsys and resections when it would have been better to do nothing.

My experience was that I was strongly encouraged to have a digital
examination and MRI, neither of which was likely to do me any harm,
although I found them both unpleasant.

Problem is with what is offered after those because those can not
determine if it is an aggressive cancer or just benign enlargement.

You clearly don't understand what benign enlargement is.


I was then offered a choice of whether to have the biopsy or to adopt
a wait-and-see policy. The latter would have involved 6-monthly
reviews, with repeat PSA, digital examination, and MRI. I chose
biopsy, as I thought it was better to know what was growing inside me.

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

The fact is that when the incidence of aggressive cancer is MUCH
lower than the very very common incidence of very slow growing
prostate cancer that the absolute vast bulk of those who have it
will die with from other causes instead of dying from, so many that
do have a biopsy end up with incontence and or impotence or
both that would not have had without any investigation at all.


And some are saved from dying from the aggressive cancers.

Many medics are quite keen on a wait-and-see approach. So, they use the
PSA and other tests as an indication the patient should be closely
observed.




Otherwise, I don't see how I could possibly have known that I would
have been better off doing nothing?

I think that the stats are something like 2 out of 3 biopsies find
nothing cancerous.

And with those that do find cancer, the absolute vast bulk of those
fine prostate cancer that you will die with from other causes rather
than dying of.

Around 80%, I gather. Is that absolute vast bulk?




You are confusing cancer and BPE, by the way.

Nope.

Resection is to treat BPE. You'll know if you need one without having
a PSA test - you won't be able to pee!

Utterly mangled all over again.

that's offered as in "we really really think that you should come
in for this")

And that stuff in quotes is irresponsible.

So it's irresponsible to let people with latent age related
conditions walk around un-diagnosed because they are one of these "I
never go to the doctor" types, is it?

Yep, when there are massive downsides with the 'treatment'
of what isnt going to kill you like impotence and incontinence.

Being unable to pee is a major medical problem.

No one is unable to ****.

You really know nothing!

On 19/10/2016 11:12, F wrote:
On 19/10/2016 10:54, Rod Speed wrote:

No one is unable to ****.


You need to stay out of subjects where your lack of knowledge is dangerous.


Well said! I'm all for people having freedom to speak on Usenet, but
usually they don't say things that could lead to people dying.

GB wrote:
On 19/10/2016 11:12, F wrote:
On 19/10/2016 10:54, Rod Speed wrote:

No one is unable to ****.


You need to stay out of subjects where your lack of knowledge is dangerous.


Well said! I'm all for people having freedom to speak on Usenet, but
usually they don't say things that could lead to people dying.




The sad thing is that *anyone* dignifies any of Rod's nonsense with a
response. You just giving him what he wants.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's possible
for all of those to miss cancerous cells.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

GB wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That's not the problem, the problem is what they do after doing those
basic checks and find something they dont like and start doing
biopsys and resections when it would have been better to do nothing.

My experience was that I was strongly encouraged to have a digital
examination and MRI, neither of which was likely to do me any harm,
although I found them both unpleasant.

Problem is with what is offered after those because those can not
determine if it is an aggressive cancer or just benign enlargement.

You clearly don't understand what benign enlargement is.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Neither of those two can
determine if it is an aggressive cancer or just benign enlargement.

I was then offered a choice of whether to have the biopsy or to adopt a
wait-and-see policy. The latter would have involved 6-monthly
reviews, with repeat PSA, digital examination, and MRI. I chose biopsy,
as I thought it was better to know what was growing inside me.

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

Yep, basic physics. Even a 12 needle biopsy isnt guaranteed
to end up with a sample of the cancer if it is present and isnt
guaranteed to produce a sample of the aggressive cancer if
its present either and may just provide a sample of the non
aggressive cancer that does not need any treatment.

The fact is that when the incidence of aggressive cancer is MUCH
lower than the very very common incidence of very slow growing
prostate cancer that the absolute vast bulk of those who have it
will die with from other causes instead of dying from, so many that
do have a biopsy end up with incontence and or impotence or
both that would not have had without any investigation at all.

And some are saved from dying from the aggressive cancers.

Of course but like with any medical treatment, what matters
is how many are treated who would have been better not
treated because it would not have killed them, for the much
smaller number who would have died if that had not been
treated. particularly with such important major treatment
downsides that arent uncommon at all.

Many medics are quite keen on a wait-and-see approach. So, they use the
PSA and other tests as an indication the patient should be closely
observed.

And plenty of individuals do decide to have the aggressive
treatment that they would have been better of not having.

Otherwise, I don't see how I could possibly have known that I would have
been better off doing nothing?

I think that the stats are something like 2 out of 3 biopsies find
nothing cancerous.

And with those that do find cancer, the absolute vast bulk of those find
prostate cancer that you will die with from other causes rather than
dying of.

Around 80%, I gather. Is that absolute vast bulk?

Yep.

You are confusing cancer and BPE, by the way.

Nope.

Resection is to treat BPE. You'll know if you need one without having a
PSA test - you won't be able to pee!

Utterly mangled all over again.

that's offered as in "we really really think that you should come in
for this")

And that stuff in quotes is irresponsible.

So it's irresponsible to let people with latent age related
conditions walk around un-diagnosed because they are one of these "I
never go to the doctor" types, is it?

Yep, when there are massive downsides with the 'treatment'
of what isnt going to kill you like impotence and incontinence.

Being unable to pee is a major medical problem.

No one is unable to ****.

You really know nothing!

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

A catheter will always allow you to ****.
No one ever explodes in a cloud of ****.

GB wrote

I'm all for people having freedom to speak on Usenet, but
usually they don't say things that could lead to people dying.

Everyone dies.

You and your ilk say things that do lead people to end up
incontinent and impotent who would not have done so
and who would not have been killed by their prostate cancer
or even have any symptoms from their prostate cancer either.

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's possible
for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect region
shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the MRI data
projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5 cm
centres. I think 48 samples normally.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's
possible for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect region
shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the MRI data
projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5 cm
centres. I think 48 samples normally.

Ouch!

I just got a phone call today confirming that my PSA has risen more than
normal. Conversation with the doc later.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 20/10/2016 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's
possible for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect region
shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the MRI data
projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5 cm
centres. I think 48 samples normally.

Ouch!

I just got a phone call today confirming that my PSA has risen more than
normal. Conversation with the doc later.

Good luck. Don't take Rod's views too seriously.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:37:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 20/10/2016 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's
possible for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect
region shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the
MRI data projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5
cm centres. I think 48 samples normally.

Ouch!

I just got a phone call today confirming that my PSA has risen more
than normal. Conversation with the doc later.

Good luck. Don't take Rod's views too seriously.

Thanks. GP is going for fast track appointment with consultant.



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"GB" wrote in message
...
On 20/10/2016 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's
possible for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect region
shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the MRI data
projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5 cm
centres. I think 48 samples normally.

Ouch!

I just got a phone call today confirming that my PSA has risen more than
normal. Conversation with the doc later.

Good luck. Don't take Rod's views too seriously.

It isnt just my view.

On 20/10/2016 15:41, Bob Eager wrote:
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:37:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 20/10/2016 00:46, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 22:34:30 +0100, GB wrote:

On 19/10/2016 18:17, Bob Eager wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:17:51 +0100, GB wrote:

Trouble is a biopsy isnt definitive evidence of that.

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

It's what I was told. A 12-needle biopsy takes 12 samples. It's
possible for all of those to miss cancerous cells.

Ah, I see what you mean. In my case, there was a defined suspect
region shown on the MRI. The biopsy, guided by ultrasound and with the
MRI data projected on, included 2 samples from that region.

I agree that 12 samples taken at random could miss a small tumour. So,
it's worth keeping PSA under review even after a positive result.

There's an alternative procedure that takes samples on a grid at 0.5
cm centres. I think 48 samples normally.

Ouch!

I just got a phone call today confirming that my PSA has risen more
than normal. Conversation with the doc later.

Good luck. Don't take Rod's views too seriously.

Thanks. GP is going for fast track appointment with consultant.

So, they should see you within two weeks, hopefully.

When I went on this track, everything went scarily fast.

Consultant "You need an MRI scan. Hmmm... checks appointment system. Can
you manage 3?"

Me: "You mean the 3rd of next month?"

He: "No, 3 this afternoon."