Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
Hi Dave I share your concern regarding treatments undertaken without definitive proof of where the cancer is situated, surely this cannot be of benefit to the patient and the NHS budget. Was your Treatment IMRT and only focused on the prostate bed or was the treatment area more wide spread to catch any theoretical spread elsewhere in the abdomen, as the more focused approach would have been better for future RT. I do hope your lymph node treatment is successful and you can then put this all behind you, so please keep us informed.
Thank you all
Roy
Hi Roy,
Thanks for that, the short answer to your question is 'I don't know'. I would suspect it was focused only on the prostate bed. I had hoped at the time to get some idea of the 'footprint' but it wasn't easy and I was unsuccessful.
Getting information on my RT was like getting blood from a stone - I might just has well been asking the Onco for the name of his tailor!
My reason for finding out, apart from natural curiosity, was that the Urologist and the RT man seemed to be on a different wave-length. Prior to my salvage RT the Uro man stated that he was asking the RT man to concentrate a higher dosage on one side of the prostate bed as that had the higher Gleason score.
However, when I asked for details of my treatment, all I was told was that "It's 2 gy times 33 = 66 gy" It was even written down of a piece of paper for me!!
The talk amongst the Prostate Men in the waiting room was that there was one senior radiographer taking (among others) the weekly progress meetings, who was really informative and would demonstrate with the scanning and x-ray images, what was going on. The guys were clearly aware that he was the exception and weren't too impressed with the others who were either senior radiographers or a MacMillan nurse.
Unfortunately, I got the others on my progress meetings and they took the form of one-way interrogations- "Any bleeding?, any soreness? That's good, see you next time"
I broached the subject again, trying to ascertain whether the Urologist's recommendations had been followed only to get the following response.
"Well, urologists do what they do, and radiologists do what they do" I took that to be a no.
Shortly I am to see an oncologist (the same one). As the Urologist didn't have sight of the imaging or the scan results (and thus wasting a consultation), and just (by default) a faxed report of the scan for the next consultation, I was keen on ensuring that on the next appointment, the onco would have the scan imaging available to him by accessing it in advance from UCLH
So I phoned the man's secretary who said, "Oh he probably won't need it for this consultation, but maybe later"
I would have thought the "He might" might have been a more prudent approach than "probably not"
Picking up on my unease at that, she sort of relented but that may have been in order to humour me.
So we will have to wait and see.
Dave