Connect
Gleason7(3+4) - treatment options recommendation
Got recently diagnosed with Gleason group 2, 7(3+4). Was in state of shock to know about the cancer.
I’m 56 year old and fortunately I’m with Mayo care since last decade.
Recommendation for me is to have prostatectomy as radiation therapy has long term implications. Took outside opinion also and same recommendation. But not sure how to deal post procedure with urge to urinate situation currently there.
Biggest thing is I’m hoping there is no recurrence occurring after this. Any suggestion/recommendation?
Like
Helpful
HugInterested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.
Connect
I just joined this group. Similar situation, I am 57 with a Gleason 3+4 intermediate, favorable diagnosis. Decipher test was very favorable. I have not yet seen discussion of Active Surveillance, which is the direction I am leaning. This keeps my options open with no immediate risk. Anyone follow this path?
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@frog69
Many discussions, use the search bar and type in active surveillance. Very appropriate option. Good luck.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@frog69
You sure are a lot of active surveillance discussions in this forum.
With a 3+4 and a low percentage of four in the cores that are 3+4, then you have a good chance of doing active surveillance. Here are some videos from experts about active surveillance. The first one may be most interesting to you.
Excellent Fred Hutch doctor video: Dr. Claire de la Calle
Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer w/ Dr. Claire de la Calle | Ep. 288
Here is a video with Dr. Laurence Klotz, one of the experts on active surveillance. He can give you answers as to why you would or would not be a good candidate for active surveillance.
Here is a video by Dr. Epstein discussing active surveillance and more
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
3 Reactions3+4 will not be candidate for active surveillance. This will be considered favorable intermediate risk. You should seek advice from medical professionals for treatment options
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 Reaction@manojsmishra
Why wouldn’t it be depending on the person’s circumstances.
@manojsmishra
While that might have been true many years ago that’s not true today. If someone only has one or two cores that are 3+4 and the percentage of four is only 5% or 10% then active surveillance makes a lot of sense. They could get a decipher score to find out what the chance of reoccurrence is, A low score would make active surveillance even more attractive.
Review this video and you will see what a doctor, with expertise in the field, feels about it
Excellent Fred Hutch doctor video: Dr. Claire de la Calle
Active Surveillance for Intermediate Risk Prostate Cancer w/ Dr. Claire de la Calle | Ep. 288
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@frog69 Active surveillance with a 3+4 low intermediate risk cancer, and a low Decipher or Oncotype score to provide additional evidence of favorable disease, IS an appropriate clinical decision. The importance is the ACTIVE in surveillance with the understanding that intervention can be offered if/when changes to a higher risk lesion are seen without reducing the chances for a favorable treatment outcome.