1. < Prostate Cancer

Laparoscopic prostatectomy?

Posted by peterj116 @peterj116, Sep 11 4:04pm

I just read the letter from the surgeon to my GP.
I'm having "a laparoscopic radical prostatectomy".
Does that mean it's not a robotic procedure?

If not, what's the difference in terms of procedure & outcome?

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.

jsh327 | @jsh327 | Sep 18 10:54am
In reply to @jeffmarc "The standard for undetectable in a PSA test has been < .1 for the 14 years..." + (show)
@jeffmarc

The standard for undetectable in a PSA test has been < .1 for the 14 years I’ve had prostate cancer., at least according to more than one doctor/oncologist I’ve been involved with

Jump to this post

You are correct. My oncologist responded to me that if a patient is tested with a standard PSA test and the results are < 0.1, it is considered undetectable. My oncologist and urologist started using ultrasensitive PSA tests after my RP, so my initial post surgery PSA of 0.03 was not considered undetectable. He also stated that if a PSA remains below 0.1, a BCR of 0.2 never occurs, so the tests wind up at the same point in terms of next treatment set points.

REPLY
robo45vt | @robo45vt | Sep 18 12:52pm
In reply to @twinlakes32 "The 3 month and 6 month checks were at Mayo. Both were reported as < 0.1...." + (show)
@twinlakes32

The 3 month and 6 month checks were at Mayo. Both were reported as < 0.1. PSA checks since then have been done up here in Duluth MN. 9 month was reported as 0.01. 12 month was 0.01. 15 month was 0.02. 18 month (done yesterday) was 0.03. I sent a message to Mayo when the 0.02 came in, and they responded that anything less than 0.1 is considered undetectable. I have an appointment with my urologist in Duluth next week, and I’m anxious to see what they have to say.

Jump to this post

Can’t get much lower than that

REPLY
bfg1 | @bfg1 | Sep 18 1:18pm

I’m pretty sure any laparoscopic prostatectomy procedure will be robotic. Confirm this with your surgeon.

REPLY
1 reply
peterj116 | @peterj116 | Sep 18 2:32pm
In reply to @bfg1 "I’m pretty sure any laparoscopic prostatectomy procedure will be robotic. Confirm this with your surgeon." + (show)
@bfg1

I’m pretty sure any laparoscopic prostatectomy procedure will be robotic. Confirm this with your surgeon.

Jump to this post

It's the first question I'll ask when I get there.

REPLY
retireddoc | @retireddoc | Sep 19 6:13pm
In reply to @jsh327 "Surprising that a Mayo doctor stated that < 0.1 is considered undetectable. My doctors consider anything..." + (show)
@jsh327

Surprising that a Mayo doctor stated that < 0.1 is considered undetectable. My doctors consider anything measurable to be detectable, but less than 0.1 to be not actionable. Waiting for PSA to approach 0.20 before considered as a biological chemical recurrence and beginning next treatment.. However, measurements < 0.1 were used to track PSA doubling time and I was prepared for the next treatment as the PSA increased above 0.10

Jump to this post

My very experienced MO at Johns Hopkins uses < 0.1 as undetectable. I live in Georgia and go to Labcorp and that is how they define undetectable. Nothing below that is actionable. I understand some wanted to see their PSA increase from a very low number and "be prepared" when it does reach >0.1 but the flip side to that is ignorant bliss until/if/when it reaches>0,1.
Each to their own.

REPLY
billfarm | @billfarm | Sep 19 7:50pm

I was in mayo rochester on the day of your surgery consulting dr Kwon about next strategy. You went to a great place.

REPLY
johnoclark | @johnoclark | Sep 20 11:08am

Robotic prostatectomy in 2005 worked great for me.

REPLY
1 reply
jeffmarc | @jeffmarc | Sep 20 11:14am
In reply to @johnoclark "Robotic prostatectomy in 2005 worked great for me." + (show)
@johnoclark

Robotic prostatectomy in 2005 worked great for me.

Jump to this post

Since 2005 radiation has become more effective. There are multiple types of new radiation treatments that don’t leave the patient without an erection.

You don’t know what your choice would have been if you had to make it today.

REPLY
2 replies
johnoclark | @johnoclark | Sep 20 11:19am
In reply to @jeffmarc "Since 2005 radiation has become more effective. There are multiple types of new radiation treatments that..." + (show)
@jeffmarc

Since 2005 radiation has become more effective. There are multiple types of new radiation treatments that don’t leave the patient without an erection.

You don’t know what your choice would have been if you had to make it today.

Jump to this post

Correct!

REPLY
johnoclark | @johnoclark | Sep 20 4:19pm
In reply to @jeffmarc "Since 2005 radiation has become more effective. There are multiple types of new radiation treatments that..." + (show)
@jeffmarc

Since 2005 radiation has become more effective. There are multiple types of new radiation treatments that don’t leave the patient without an erection.

You don’t know what your choice would have been if you had to make it today.

Jump to this post

Without an erection?

REPLY
1 reply
View MoreView Less
Please sign in or register to post a reply.