Not Good News after prostate biospy when MRI didn't look too bad

Posted by diverjer @diverjer, Feb 10 9:29pm

Last month I had PSA of 5.23 when a few months earlier it was 3.2. Then they scheduled me for MRI of prostate. Did another PSA and it was down to 4.16, but still wanted the MRI. Report is below, doesn't look good PI-RADS 5. At one point they say in report Lesions (PI-RADS 3 or higher). If I understand it, it hasn't spread. Wish I could get a plan with doctor!

FINDINGS:
Prostate measurement: 5.7 x 5.0 x 4.9 cm Prostate volume: 68.75 cc PSA: 4.16 ng/mL PSA density: 0.06 ng/mL/cc
Peripheral zone: See below.
Transition zone: No index lesion. Stromal and glandular BPH nodules.
Lesions (PI-RADS 3 or higher):
Lesion # 1: Location: Left posterior peripheral zone extending from the base to the apex Size: 2.4 x 1.3 x 2.6 cm (5.83 cc). T2: T2
hypointense DWI: Marked restricted diffusion DCE: Focal early enhancement, positive Prostate margin: Abuts the capsule without
definite invasion Overall PI-RADS Score: 5/5
Prostatic capsule: Intact.
Neurovascular bundles: Not involved.
Seminal vesicles: Not involved.
Lymph nodes: No lymphadenopathy.
Bones: No acute osseous abnormality.
Other findings: Small fat-containing right inguinal hernia.
IMPRESSION:
1. The prostate gland measures 5.7 x 5.0 x 4.9 cm with volume of 68.75 cc. PSA density is 0.06 NG/mL/CC. 2. Lesion # 1: PI-
RADS 5 lesion in the left posterior peripheral zone extending from the base to the apex measures 5.83 cc. No frank extracapsular
extension. 3. No pelvic lymphadenopathy.
PI-RADS Category 5: Very high (clinically significant prostate cancer is highly likely to be present)

Really doesn't look to bad, one spot that hasn't spread!

Then Bad Update 2/10/2026
Well got biopsy yesterday and results today, doctor hasn't called, just sent biopsy results to MyChart.

The MRI showed only one Lesion like shown above. Had biopsy done yesterday, they did 3 from the Lesion and 6 from each side of prostate. I wondered why they did more biopsy that were outside the lesion, but didn't ask. Got report today- not good. The lesion look better than areas where MRI saw nothing. They took 15 samples total.
Results:
Final Diagnosis
View trends
A. Prostate, "LLB", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 3+4=7 (Grade group 2) in 1 of 1 core, involving 30% of needle core tissue.

B. Prostate, "LMB", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 70% of needle core tissue

C. Prostate, "LLM", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 3+4=7 (Grade group 2) in 1 of 1 core, involving 60% of needle core tissue.

D. Prostate, "LMM", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 60% of needle core tissue.
Large cribriform glands present.

E. Prostate, "LLA", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 3+4=7 (Grade group 2) in 1 of 1 core, involving 60% of needle core tissue.

F. Prostate, "LMA", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 3+4=7 (Grade group 2) in 1 of 1 core, involving 50% of needle core tissue.

G. Prostate, "RLB", biopsy:
Benign prostatic tissue.

H. Prostate, "RMB", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 10% of needle core tissue.

I. Prostate, "RLM", biopsy:
Benign prostatic tissue.

J. Prostate, "RMM", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 50% of needle core tissue
Large cribriform glands present.

K. Prostate, "RLA", biopsy:
Benign prostatic tissue.

L. Prostate, "RMA", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 25% of needle core tissue

M. Prostate, "ROI#1", biopsy:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 3+4=7 (Grade group 2) in 3 of 3 cores involving 70% of needle core tissue

Another thread I posted in a person said "You have a Gleason 4+3 7 BUT you have large cribriform and doctors a UCSF say that puts a 5 in your Gleason score." I believe he picked this up from the biopsy report. I don't know what a cribriform even is, it's not mention in report. From googling around it can only be determined by sieve-like or "Swiss cheese" appearance under a microscope and I don't see that in report? But this is all new to me. Doctors haven't talked to me yet, who knows when they will call or make appointment, took long time to get MRI and even longer to get the biopsy done. Sure were fast getting results, they said 7 - 10 days and they gave them to me the next day. Kind of wish they didn't give me results prior to talking with me.

My first thought is just get the thing cut out, not sure how that is done, as seems they got to leave something in there for urine to flow threw. So they couldn't take 100 percent of prostate out. Then I read about nerve sparing or not and not sure what that means. No doctors have discussed this with me yet. Seems if they take it out there shouldn't be any prostate cancer left? But then I read where people get it out and still have a PSA level, so like I said earlier, they must leave some in there, even when they call it total. Had to drive 150 miles to get MRI and biopsy They could have done that in Topeka, but KUMC is ranked as number 50 in top of prostate treatment so I went there Topeka doesn't have a Proton device, that would be back up to KUMC 150 miles RT. One of those radiations therapy is only a few days, not 30 some days. They do have SBRT radiation in Topeka, but I know of someone who had SBRT or maybe it was IMRT and it screwed up several other organs around the prostate, like bladder, kidneys and intestines.
Then some tell me I am lucky to have them all in grade group 2 or 3. But seems like I had a lot of them (12 of the 15) . So I would guess if they did 25 biopsy I could have had more grade group 2 or 3.
All confusing and stressful, other that this I am 78 years old healthy as a horse- no other issues and very active. Loss of what to do and all the different radiation types, that why just getting the pesky thing cut out of there, but seems they still leave some in.

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

Profile picture for Jeff Marchi @jeffmarc

@rlpostrp
Actually, the cribriform That is a problem is large cribriform over .25 mm. The smaller cribriform that they do sometimes list on the biopsy is not really a major problem.

Was that discussed in your meeting?.

I could post a video from UCSF about the problems with large cribriform.

Jump to this post

@jeffmarc
My conference call appointment is coming up in two days. There was no delineation or descriptive for my Cribriform Glands. It was a line item on my post-surgical path report that merely said: “Cribriform glands - present.”
The next line said: “Intraductal Carcinoma - absent.”
Thanks

REPLY

Hello All:
I just sat in on the latest Promise study results. They have reopened the study until June of 2026, by popular demand. Over 5000 have been tested for free, looking for the inherited forms of PA.
See attached slide shots of their talk.

Shared files

Promise Prostate CA results to date (Promise-Prostate-CA-results-to-date.pdf)

REPLY

Mine didn't give a size either, but did say large, I don't have a clue to what the "involving X % of needle core" mean that was on each sample taken? I would guess the percent of core sample that was cancer tissue since a percent is on every sample listed. But does it mean the whole percent of needle core sample was cribriform or part of the core sample was cribriform on the 2 samples that had cribriform? Example of one core below:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 60% of needle core tissue.
Large cribriform glands present

Didn't give size, I am think it doesn't mean the whole percent listed as it say cribriform was present?

REPLY
Profile picture for diverjer @diverjer

Mine didn't give a size either, but did say large, I don't have a clue to what the "involving X % of needle core" mean that was on each sample taken? I would guess the percent of core sample that was cancer tissue since a percent is on every sample listed. But does it mean the whole percent of needle core sample was cribriform or part of the core sample was cribriform on the 2 samples that had cribriform? Example of one core below:
Prostatic adenocarcinoma Gleason score 4+3=7 (Grade group 3) in 1 of 1 core, involving 60% of needle core tissue.
Large cribriform glands present

Didn't give size, I am think it doesn't mean the whole percent listed as it say cribriform was present?

Jump to this post

@diverjer
They don’t give you a size they just say large, which means over 2.5 mm. That is the one that has a real problem being treated. Because it is more aggressive.

REPLY
Profile picture for brianjarvis @brianjarvis

@diverjer That’s an interesting response.

> “No, the radiologist did not assign it a SUV score. It was a solitary & suggestive of benign lesion.”

In an earlier post, you mentioned “…The PA-C did call tonight and was sorry, still hasn't sent in Decipher test. Said my PSMA Pet Scan showed Prostate Cancer, he would say Grade Group 3, unfavorable and intermediate.”

If it was a benign lesion, then they would not have assigned an SUVmax score to it (& therefore, no reason to mention SUVmax scores of blood/liver/parotid; though, it still would’ve been good to know how thorough they were being.)

However, if it was a “Grade Group 3, unfavorable and intermediate” as your PA-C indicated, then it would’ve had a SUVmax score assigned to it (probably between the SUVmax scores of blood & liver or liver & parotid).

Still, worth following up on to insure you’re getting consistent information from your medical team members.

Jump to this post

@brianjarvis
This has been a real pain, the surgical doctor did think they should have assigned a SUV on rib (after he looked at it), and was going to ask for review and ask why no mention of mention SUVmax scores of blood/liver/parotid since they did do a SUV on prostate of 11.1. It doesn't seem like I am asking a whole lot!

KUMC Doctor is out for a week, but ask his nurse to get review done this week. Nurse talked to radiation department and got this responds: " I called and spoke with the nuclear medicine department and it is not standard practice for them to re-review your images to report the SUVs. It was reiterated to me that all pertinent information will be stated in the report".

So they refuse to look at it again! And when they say pertinent info is in report, what does that really mean, I should have access to all of it. I did read that I can submit formally request called an "Over-Read": Explicitly ask for a second interpretation (or "over-read") of your scan, particularly if you suspect a misdiagnosis. You can ask for a subspecialist radiologist to review your scans. However, it seems they ate ignoring that request.

And this is what they call--The University of Kansas Cancer Center
is the only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center in Kansas and the region, placing it in the top 1% of cancer centers nationwide.

I am really down and figure they are just going to do nothing. Damn medical field!

REPLY
Profile picture for diverjer @diverjer

@brianjarvis
This has been a real pain, the surgical doctor did think they should have assigned a SUV on rib (after he looked at it), and was going to ask for review and ask why no mention of mention SUVmax scores of blood/liver/parotid since they did do a SUV on prostate of 11.1. It doesn't seem like I am asking a whole lot!

KUMC Doctor is out for a week, but ask his nurse to get review done this week. Nurse talked to radiation department and got this responds: " I called and spoke with the nuclear medicine department and it is not standard practice for them to re-review your images to report the SUVs. It was reiterated to me that all pertinent information will be stated in the report".

So they refuse to look at it again! And when they say pertinent info is in report, what does that really mean, I should have access to all of it. I did read that I can submit formally request called an "Over-Read": Explicitly ask for a second interpretation (or "over-read") of your scan, particularly if you suspect a misdiagnosis. You can ask for a subspecialist radiologist to review your scans. However, it seems they ate ignoring that request.

And this is what they call--The University of Kansas Cancer Center
is the only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center in Kansas and the region, placing it in the top 1% of cancer centers nationwide.

I am really down and figure they are just going to do nothing. Damn medical field!

Jump to this post

@diverjer
As I’ve already mentioned, I have a rib that shows up every time and has no SUV, It shows up because I broke it over 50 years ago.

I suspect her situation is pretty much the same. Maybe you don’t realize that it was broken at one time, Or maybe cracked significantly, No metastasis no SUV.

REPLY
Profile picture for diverjer @diverjer

@brianjarvis
This has been a real pain, the surgical doctor did think they should have assigned a SUV on rib (after he looked at it), and was going to ask for review and ask why no mention of mention SUVmax scores of blood/liver/parotid since they did do a SUV on prostate of 11.1. It doesn't seem like I am asking a whole lot!

KUMC Doctor is out for a week, but ask his nurse to get review done this week. Nurse talked to radiation department and got this responds: " I called and spoke with the nuclear medicine department and it is not standard practice for them to re-review your images to report the SUVs. It was reiterated to me that all pertinent information will be stated in the report".

So they refuse to look at it again! And when they say pertinent info is in report, what does that really mean, I should have access to all of it. I did read that I can submit formally request called an "Over-Read": Explicitly ask for a second interpretation (or "over-read") of your scan, particularly if you suspect a misdiagnosis. You can ask for a subspecialist radiologist to review your scans. However, it seems they ate ignoring that request.

And this is what they call--The University of Kansas Cancer Center
is the only National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center in Kansas and the region, placing it in the top 1% of cancer centers nationwide.

I am really down and figure they are just going to do nothing. Damn medical field!

Jump to this post

@diverjer Their response “pertinent information” makes sense…from their viewpoint.

What I’ve found is that doctors (in this case urologists, radiation oncologists, & medical oncologists), will tell you everything they think you need to know for them to treat you - but not everything you’d want to know, especially if you want to know fully what’s going on, self-advocate, and share in the decision-making.

(With an SUV of 11.1, it’s kind of like knowing you have a body temperature of 98.6° F. Unless you know what a “normal” temperature range is, it’s just an arbitrary number.)

Second opinions are standard these days, especially for anything that requires a medical opinion - like interpreting tissues, scans, images, etc. or recommending treatments.

Sorry you have to deal with an uncooperative medical team.

REPLY
Profile picture for Jeff Marchi @jeffmarc

@diverjer
As I’ve already mentioned, I have a rib that shows up every time and has no SUV, It shows up because I broke it over 50 years ago.

I suspect her situation is pretty much the same. Maybe you don’t realize that it was broken at one time, Or maybe cracked significantly, No metastasis no SUV.

Jump to this post

@jeffmarc In that case, hopefully they would simply state that there was no uptake (instead of stating that “we’ve told you everything we think is pertinent.”

Still, must have been an SUVmax for blood/liver/parotid.

REPLY

Well Decipher test came back, not good, might as well give it up. I tried to post the test results, but this site doesn't let me post an image and that is what in came in a TIF. That is too bad as it's interesting.

Anyway my score was .85 which is very high. Not good for me as risk of metastasis with standard therapy (what ever standard therapy means) is 5 years 5.5%, 10 years 13.5%, 15 years 19.4%. I am in 87 percentile which means 86 % with similar clinical features had a lower score and 13 % were higher.

Now my doctor took off a week for spring break, guess can't blame him for that just more delays.

REPLY
Profile picture for brianjarvis @brianjarvis

@jeffmarc In that case, hopefully they would simply state that there was no uptake (instead of stating that “we’ve told you everything we think is pertinent.”

Still, must have been an SUVmax for blood/liver/parotid.

Jump to this post

@brianjarvis
I was referring specifically to the rib in my comment. My report about my broken rib didn’t say anything about no uptake, just mentioned it as unknown.

SUV of blood/Liver/parotid are not shown for the following reasons.

Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) is not used or is unreliable for liver assessment in PET scans primarily due to high, variable background metabolic activity and uptake of ¹⁸F-FDG, . LWW

The Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) is rarely used for blood in PET imaging because blood acts as the background distribution for the tracer (FDG) rather than a target for high metabolic activity, and its levels are too variable NIH

The Standardized Uptake Value (SUV)—a quantitative measure of FDG tracer activity in PET scans—is sometimes not used, is unreliable, or is absent in the parotid gland due to high physiological background uptake, the presence of specific low-grade tumors, or technical limitations in detecting small lesions. NIH

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.