Connect
← Return to Pathology report is in post RALP; waiting 90 days for PSA test normal?
Discussion
Pathology report is in post RALP; waiting 90 days for PSA test normal?
Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Jul 29 6:29pm | Replies (22)Comment receiving replies
I know the pathology report showed that his cancer had spread outside of his Prostate and into his lymph glands. It seems kinda odd that both the MRI and PET scans were negative. As having a robotic surgically removed Prostate myself and studying Prostate cancer patient's on various forms for years I don’t consider myself “the peanut gallery”. My cancer was just about ready to leave the barn(PNI) also. As far as “clinical basis” it’s just my comments just like any other person making “comments”. Didn’t know we needed a PHD to comment on this forum. As far as being obnoxious, non helpful/supportive I really don’t care what you think. Just trying to answer his question on the timeframe for PSA re-testing.
Dave 3+4
Replies to "I know the pathology report showed that his cancer had spread outside of his Prostate and..."
@clevelandguy
In this particular query, no one has said they had an MRI or a PET scan.
Are you responding to something besides what the original person at the top was talking about?
It’s like somebody forgot to reply to someone else and just responded to the original message in this message stream.
I don’t see any follow up message by @thig350, So everything people are talking about just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Is somebody answering a message in another message thread without bringing up that specific information?
Very confusing.
Connect
@clevelandguy
"It seems kinda odd that both the MRI and PET scans were negative."
Huh? OP's surgical pathology shows no EPE, no SVI, no BNI, no lymph node involvement. There's nothing in that report that would show on an MRI or PSMA PET. The LVI would not show up on either, and the positive margins are an artifact of surgery and not something that pre-surgical imaging would show or predict. The pathology fully validates why both the MRI and PET were negative.
Not only was there nothing unusual about the decision to recommend surgery for OP, but there's also no grounds yet to say there's been extra-prostatic spread. Neither positive margins nor LVI guarantee spread.
You've now written that "the pathology report showed that his cancer had spread outside of his Prostate and into his lymph glands" and that is 100% false. The report does not show any such thing.
"Didn’t know we needed a PHD to comment on this forum."
Nobody said that. But would you agree that spreading misinformation or incorrectly interpreting someone else's medical records is bad?
I apologize for the unnecessary "peanut gallery" comment. But when someone has already had surgery, what does saying "I'm surprised you had surgery?" accomplish besides making that person feel lousy about their decision? And in this case the statement doesn't even make sense given OP's excellent pre-surgery profile.
"I really don’t care what you think"
Noted.