Hi Dave,
Thank you for your thoughts. As regards the suspect node, Heidelberg to whom I sent a copy of my scans done by UCLH, in 2015 compared these with the scans they did covering the period 2008-11. They reported that the size and shape had not changed over this period and they felt the uptake of Choline was not sufficient for them to be convinced that this node was cancerous. This view was shared by the Marsden and QE Birmingham who also viewed the scans. However, UCLH believed the node was cancerous based on the uptake of Chlorine which they considered substantial. So a difference of interpretation.
The cores from 50 needles of my Prostate template biopsy in 2015 only showed 1 core with PCa and this was treated with HIFU. Yet from a post HIFU scan the UCLH report says the opinion is equivocal on whether there is some PCa within the Prostate.
Of course, I don't want to have further treatment if this is likely to be highly risky in introducing severe side effects but on the other hand I do want to consider what options other than just HT I have if PSA continues the upward trend. (It is clear that some consultants treat more aggressively than others). So if my PSA rises to 1.2, the point at which UCLH would start me on HT, I will consider more aggressive treatment elsewhere. My decision would also depend on what was on offer, how old and fit I was and what were the pros and cons.
Ray,
Professor E assured me that the decision for UCLH not to do anything other than initiate HT should PSA reach 1.2 was based solely on the battering my Prostate had already been subjected to and I believe this was his genuine opinion and not due to cost constraints.
Lyn,
As far as I am concerned it's not just a matter of longevity, it's the quality of life which would be impacted by long term HT that I would hope to avoid.
My mother used to say, "You never know when you're beaten". Sometimes this attitude has worked well but occasionally got me into trouble!!
Edited by member 26 Feb 2017 at 22:05
| Reason: Not specified