Gleason7(3+4) - treatment options recommendation

Posted by manojsmishra @manojsmishra, Aug 25, 2024

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?

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

Profile picture for N227 @n227rv

@jonathanack "... Everything is as normal as one could hope. Treatment provided the usual symptoms and they were manageable. ..." I am glad you're back to a sort of normal. It is encouraging to read. I am considering SBRT as opposed to surgery. The prospect of a major life change is hard for me to accept, being, it appears, a new life of infertility, incontinence and impotence in one degree or another regardless of the treatment modality.

Jump to this post

@n227rv
I was not willing to accept the lifestyle changes you point out that surgery would likely present. My surgeon advised that I would be 'dry' in a year and that impotence would be tbd depending on nerve sparing surgery once the procedure was underway. The prospect of my remaining life (64 years old) with incontinence and impotence were big factors for my wife and I. I listened carefully and sought out multiple opinions to get myself comfortable with the decision. No regrets at all. Being alive and living are two different things in my view. At this point, 7 months out, quality of life factors re: incontinence and impotence are not a problem. I have cribriform and one procedure vs the other were equal and I opted for an aggressive radiation and drug regimen. Every patient finds their way forward and the right choice is the one you are comfortable with. Go easy and best of luck. You'll make the choice that is right for you.

REPLY
Profile picture for pioneer @pioneer

Hello,

I would suggest you research a procedure called TULSA PRO. It’s a one day out patient procedure that I found much more appealing than radiation or surgery. I was 69 when diagnosed with prostate cancer in October last year. My numbers were PSA 9.6, Gleason 7 (4+3), biopsy revealed 17 out of 20 samples had cancer, cribform was present and the cancer had started pushing against my bladder. The one thing that saved me ways the cancer was still within the prostate. With the TULSA PRO procedure the prostate capsule must still be intact.

My first urologist suggested I go the radiation route, but thought surgery would be an option as well. I started down the radiation route by taking Orgovyx to reduce my testosterone levels as cancer feeds off of testosterone. Two weeks before I was scheduled to have the gold markers placed in my prostate for radiation treatments I learned about TULSA PRO.

I was fortunate that a rather close hospital in St. Louis MO (St. Louis University/SSM) had a doctor (Dr. Sameer Siddiqui, Chief of Surgery, Associate Professor, and Chief of Urology) who performed this procedure. My procedure was done on 23 April, with total time in hospital of about 6 hours (most of which was spent pre and post procedure) and sent home with a catheter. The catheter stayed in for about 14 days.

Everyone is different, but since my procedure I am dealing with incontinence and ED. The incontinence is improving and I expect the ED will resolve itself eventually. I had my 3 month PSA test on 23 July and the result was less than 0.1. I posted my results in another portion of this forum and someone asked if I had to do it all over again would I make the same decision. My response was a resounding YES. The radiation route would have taken 9 weeks with 45 treatments and required me to take Orgovyx for two years with who knows what side effects from the radiation.

Hope this helps.

Jump to this post

@pioneer

Latest research indicates that cancer does not feed off of testosterone and low testosterone may actually enable cancer.

REPLY
Profile picture for pesquallie @pesquallie

@pioneer

Latest research indicates that cancer does not feed off of testosterone and low testosterone may actually enable cancer.

Jump to this post

@pesquallie

I guess my first urologist wasn’t up on the latest research. Can you provide a reference to this research as I would like to provide it to my initial urologist.

REPLY
Profile picture for pesquallie @pesquallie

@pioneer

Latest research indicates that cancer does not feed off of testosterone and low testosterone may actually enable cancer.

Jump to this post

@pesquallie
What research is this? It’s pretty well known that if you take the testosterone down for a case, that isn’t real aggressive, it will reduce the PSA. Sure worked for me.

REPLY
Profile picture for soli @soli

I agree patients need to work with their medical professionals to determine if they are candidates for active surveillnce. It is also important to note that active surveillance is not a fringe idea found only on videos and podcasts. It is part of standards that guides urlogists nationwide. For someone newly diagnosed with low-volume Gleason 3+4 disease, the current NCCN and AUA guidelines support considering active surveillance—but only after confirming that the patient truly has favorable intermediate-risk disease. Many men (and even some physicians) still think "3+4 means you need treatment," whereas the guidelines have evolved considerably.

Current NCCN and AUA guidelines recognize that carefully selected men with low-volume Gleason 3+4 (Grade Group 2) prostate cancer may be appropriate candidates for active surveillance. Patients most likely to be suitable have - as others have indicated - favorable intermediate-risk disease, including a small amount of Gleason pattern 4, low tumor volume, low PSA density, favorable MRI findings, and favorable genomic testing. Active surveillance is not recommended for patients with adverse features such as extensive pattern 4, high tumor volume, unfavorable genomic classifiers, cribriform or intraductal carcinoma, or other signs of more aggressive disease. Treatment decisions should be individualized after discussion with an experienced urologist who is up to date with the current standards on active surveillance.

Jump to this post

@soli
I agree it is an individualized decisions work with your medical professionals. What another does is and should be seen as what is best (with their doctors) for them as an individual not based on what another person did or what they saw/heard on a podcast/seminar.

WE are all individuals thus our treatments for PC need to be individualized to what is best for us with coordination from our medical professionals.

REPLY
Profile picture for pioneer @pioneer

Hello,

I would suggest you research a procedure called TULSA PRO. It’s a one day out patient procedure that I found much more appealing than radiation or surgery. I was 69 when diagnosed with prostate cancer in October last year. My numbers were PSA 9.6, Gleason 7 (4+3), biopsy revealed 17 out of 20 samples had cancer, cribform was present and the cancer had started pushing against my bladder. The one thing that saved me ways the cancer was still within the prostate. With the TULSA PRO procedure the prostate capsule must still be intact.

My first urologist suggested I go the radiation route, but thought surgery would be an option as well. I started down the radiation route by taking Orgovyx to reduce my testosterone levels as cancer feeds off of testosterone. Two weeks before I was scheduled to have the gold markers placed in my prostate for radiation treatments I learned about TULSA PRO.

I was fortunate that a rather close hospital in St. Louis MO (St. Louis University/SSM) had a doctor (Dr. Sameer Siddiqui, Chief of Surgery, Associate Professor, and Chief of Urology) who performed this procedure. My procedure was done on 23 April, with total time in hospital of about 6 hours (most of which was spent pre and post procedure) and sent home with a catheter. The catheter stayed in for about 14 days.

Everyone is different, but since my procedure I am dealing with incontinence and ED. The incontinence is improving and I expect the ED will resolve itself eventually. I had my 3 month PSA test on 23 July and the result was less than 0.1. I posted my results in another portion of this forum and someone asked if I had to do it all over again would I make the same decision. My response was a resounding YES. The radiation route would have taken 9 weeks with 45 treatments and required me to take Orgovyx for two years with who knows what side effects from the radiation.

Hope this helps.

Jump to this post

@pioneer You know, that’s pretty impressive. I’ve always thought TulsaPro was an excellent alternative for either small tumors or total gland ablation for low grade cancer.
But to use it for cribriform pattern - an aggressive feature - is a real surprise for me.
Even radiation sometimes can’t kill it, so using TulsaPro is pretty ambitious.
Best with continued improvement!
Phil

REPLY
Profile picture for heavyphil @heavyphil

@pioneer You know, that’s pretty impressive. I’ve always thought TulsaPro was an excellent alternative for either small tumors or total gland ablation for low grade cancer.
But to use it for cribriform pattern - an aggressive feature - is a real surprise for me.
Even radiation sometimes can’t kill it, so using TulsaPro is pretty ambitious.
Best with continued improvement!
Phil

Jump to this post

@heavyphil
Thanks. The bigger challenge with my situation was the expansion of the prostate volume into the bladder area. For a while there was a debate on whether that situation would eliminate TULSA PRO as an option.

I am blessed that my doctor wanted a challenge.

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.