Anyone had a prostate biopsy?

[James Burleigh]

My doc wants to do a prostate biopsy based on a PSA trend. I'm skeptical about doing the procedure for a variety of reasons, things like risks of the procedure itself, potential false positive, a big shrug regarding not doing any treatment anyway if it's a positive, given new thinking about prostate cancer treatment, like here.

I'm going to meet with my urologist and afterward my GP to discuss the reasons and procedure in detail, but I'd like to hear from anyone who has had a prostate biopsy to hear about how the procedure went for them. The pamphlet talks about all kinds of scary potential side effects....

Thanks,

Hg

 

[wheatonFJR]

James,

I've had one. I even had a second -more invasive one- that required general anesthesia. I don't like doctors, don't like doctor's offices, don't like hospitals, certainly don't like going into surgical rooms and being told to count backwards from 50 and hear the doctor say "oops" after about 10 seconds of counting, right before you go to sleep.

That all being said, the initial biopsy is outpatient, and if it can clear things up, I certainly felt that that was the way to go. It isn't pleasant, but nothing about dealing with that part of the body is.

I remember the winter of 2008/2009 like a long bad dream. I remember that if I was going to have cancer in the prostate, I'd gladly have that prostate taken out if that meant no cancer spreading to the rest of me.

That being said...I did not have cancer...the secondary biopsy showed that...so it was a long bad dream with a happy ending for me.

I think someone on the other board was right when they said that the urologist was just excited to see me. I also made sure that the doctor didn't have both hands on my shoulders when he told me to bend over for the exam.

Anyways, I did my bit for the overall economy that year.

 

[Gramps]

I've gone through two biopsy's also base on a higher than normal PSA. It's a tough decision based on all the conflicting studies, but ultimately I decided to get it done based on my family history, father had protate cancer, and my age, I was 55 at the time. My urologist did an ultrasound first & determined I had a "shadow spot" on my prostate that was not normal & immediately did the biopsy proceedure. The results came back as noncancerous atypical cells, a big relief. Now I have to make the annual appointment to discuss my PSA results with my urologist. The proceedure is not that big of a deal,I had no side effects, but get a urologist you can trust & will work with you on all your concerns. Good luck on what ever you decide. If you would like to call me let me know I'd be happy to talk.

 

[huron52]

Yes I have and I would recommend it. It is test to confirm the PSA results.

And what Mark said!!!!!

 

[Eric L]

I am a molecular geneticist with 20 years in the field. I can tell you a couple of unsettling things. First PSA levels themselves dont mean much, but a sudden uptick is what alerts docs to doing a biopsy. The problem with prostate biopsies is that that needle has got to hit the cells you care about. Its NOT that easy. In particular, tumors are heterogeneous, and you could easily sample a part of the tumor and misinterpret the data. I heard someone say once that if you look at the prostate of every old guy that dies of heart disease, most of them have prostate tumors. many fewer get cancer. One thing we do not know is which prostate cancers are most likely to spread. There arent good markers and people really don't want their prostates removed without a good reason.

Eh, anyway, you are right that there is some controvery about the benefits of the proposed procedure. But if it was me, I'd do it. last thing you want is to choose not to do it and then have the family pissed off at you for dying in two years. Do the needle biopsy, and revisit the whole question about what to do next after you get the results.

 

[johnny80s]

Good luck Hans.

 

[Papa Georgio]

Get it done. Early detection is best, but that is just my opinion. I waited to long.

 

[bbdig]

Had the biopsys and had it removed 13 years ago.

Sent you a PM

Jack

 

[ALDAWG]

Aww darn, I thought this thread was for dogpile friday! :clapping: It's just ass talk, and not the good kind either. :angry2:

 

[Jim in Phoenix]

I had one after a kidney/bladder infection made me as sick as I had ever been, and the PSA test went ballistic. I felt like it was not necessary, but allowed my doctor to talk me into it. Probably a bad decision for me - but maybe not everyone. The test itself is not pleasant but not the worst thing in the world either. I get the impression that opinion is moving away from doing the biopsy based solely on the PSA test. If there are other indicators, then maybe the biopsy makes sense. Subsequent PSA tests have been OK and I might skip the test altogether next time. Good luck with your decision either way.

 

[beemerdons]

Good luck Hans.

+1, Gunny; All of the Best Hans, We Stanley Boys are pulling for you!!

 

[CrazyFloyd]

AmishFJR may have some insight for ya James, he recently had some extensive prostate surgery.

 

[James Burleigh]

Thank you all for sharing your experience, advice, and support. Great stuff here. I will revisit this page before I make my decision. I meet with my urologist to discuss this in a few weeks.

Hans / JB

 

[Eric L]

just as an FYI for interested folks

https://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-18/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-cancer-deathsbre86h1ke-20120718_1_prostate-high-psa-levels-low-grade-cancer

 

[allrider]

FYI, I read this similar article.

PIVOT