Hello. Just wanted to give a summary of my situation. I had a PSA of 1.9 in 2014. It had stayed in that range until around 2017. That is when I decided to have to have FLA done by Dr. K (with ok results, I am back on flomax doing pretty well). Fast forward to April of 2018: I went back to my URO and had a PSA of 3.5. Then in October of 2018 it went to 4.25. Due to the relatively quick increase, he suggested a prostate biopsy. I was never really concerned about the increasing PSA and cancer connection as I knew (and Dr. K confirmed) that any type of procedure can increase PSA levels). However, I felt like I needed to make sure. I eventually called his nurse to advise I was going to have a 3T MRI done before any type of invasive biopsy procedure. She told me that they can request the MRI for me and it would be covered by insurance. My first thought was why wasn't this the first suggestion by the doctor? I think we know the reason why. The MRI came back negative and all is well.Please know your options and you should always consider the least invasive option first. Technology is a wonderful thing.
Trustme
Very good.
Yes it is better to have some less invasive first before anything is done.
Glad things worked out for you.
Take careKen
Wish I would have known this a year ago, my Uro did these two in reverse order. When I questioned her, she said insurance wont cover the MRI unless you do the biopsy first.
Tim
Now you know the true. It can be done before. I went through the same thing many years ago. I was told at 47 I had prostate cancer. I don't remember if MRI were around 16 years ago but had a 12 needle biopsy which came back good.
But I would have rather had the MRI instead.
Take care Ken
Great story with a happy ending! Men are now getting smarter and becoming more informed due to forums like this. And that = taking control of our bodies and our destinies.
i agree....did the same with 3T MRI when my PSA went up, instead of invasive biopsy. Dr K was of great help!
Hi Trustme:
Our medical community is still seeing $$$$ in their eyes rather than concentrating on best possible outcomes with the least amount of pain and anguish for their patients.
Regards, Raffie.
Maybe I am missing a deeper point.
If a PSA level rises, why shouldn't a biopsy precede an MRI -- assuming a biopsy, while uncomfortable, is not a danger to the male apparatus? (And anyway, isn't a biopsy a needed microscopic look at tissue...while MRI is more macroscopic? If PSA is a marker for prostate cancer, wouldn't a microscopic look at tissue be properly advised?)
Disclosure: Age almost-73. PSA every year --- no matt3er what "they" say. My score is in the 2.4s. Has been for years. If I go to 4.4 in the span of a year or less, I would assume a biopsy is worth careful consideration, no?
Also -- what is the "procedure" you refer to in Line 8. A PSA test? I am not aware that this can elevate PSA readings. (Interestingly, I was told some time ago that an orgasm within 48 hrs of the test can mess up the readings to the bad side.)
Also fwiw: had a needle biopsy of my liver 20 years ago. No more painful than a few polio shots when I was a kid. Sometimes we get worked up over these things.
If I'm going to have a biopsy, not going to be a blind one. It needs to be guided by MRI, Ultra sound or something
Absolutely. Why assume otherwise? But I don 't believe a biopsy can be conducted during an MRI. Ultra-sound maybe, but not an MRI. (And we are at a time in history when -- depending on the direction of the news headlines -- we thrive on open skepticism of establishment institutions that save lives every day. One day it's the greedy drug companies -- until their product saves your life or the life of a loved one. Next day, maybe, the greedy universe of doctors who can take your heart from its cavity and give it a new life -- but should be "free of charge" because, some say, health care is a "right."
My only right, as I see it, is to work hard and provide for my family. Paying health care premiums, life insurance premiums, etc. etc. etc. 'Cause in the end, we're all in this together. Health and life insurance premiums before new car payments and I-phones, I always say! ;)
I have had neither an MRI nor a biopsy, but am thinking about an MRI. My understanding is that the MRI can show areas in the prostate that are more likely cancerous or even have a high probability of being cancerous. Thereafter, the urologist can use the MRI scans to better target areas in the prostate for the biopsy.That's my understanding at least, but am looking forward to responses from men who've actually had both done.
Hi all, keep in mind while a 3tmri is a wonderful tool its results are not bullet proof eg, while a 3tmri can find what a multiple needle biopsy can miss likewise even a 3tmri can miss what a multiple needle biopsy can find, it pays health wise to keep up to date with the experts that demonstrate genuine concern and have a record of vast successful experience along with reading reports from guys like us here on this excellent forum, I used Dr K and very glad I did but I also did a great deal of research.
I had a biopsy because my PSA was 4+. 6 months later it went to 7 and she called for an MRI. So if the MRI is more reliable, then that should be first IMO. Both showed no sigh of cancer.
Biopsies are not without risk. From a site called prostate dot net, I found this statement: "There are a few medically induced causes of prostatitis, prostate biopsy being one of them. A small percentage of men develop acute bacterial prostatitis after having a prostate biopsy. A prostate biopsy is one of the procedures a physician usually recommends when prostate cancer is suspected.
Because the prostate biopsy procedure is done by passing a needle through the rectum to collect a specimen from the prostate, the needle can help transport bacteria from the bowel into the prostate, bladder, or even blood stream. The most common bacterium that causes acute bacterial prostatitis after a prostate biopsy is Escherichia coli (E. coli). Risk of infection goes up significantly if a cleansing enema is not performed prior to the procedure."
Clearly, a biopsy should be done when it is indicated. However, let me give you an example of one being done, in my opinion, without good cause. A good friend of mine has BPH and went to a urologist. The urologist did an ultrasound (without a probe) and based on that alone ordered a biopsy. He hadn't even done a PSA test; he was just guessing that there could be cancer. As it turns out, my friend has median lobe growth, and will undergo FLA in a couple of months. In preparation for that, he had a 3T done close to where he lives, and it was sent to the specialist who will do the FLA procedure. It turned out the image was really clear for some reason. It turned out that the center doing the 3T MRI had not told my friend that the lower bowel and rectum needed to be empty through using a Fleet enema. So, any of you guys having a 3T MRI of the prostate, keep that in mind.
Glenn
Hey Glenn
That does make a lot of cents.
Have a good day....Ken
to answer your question, MRI was in use in mid-80's already. I happen to work in that field and at that time 1.5T was starting to show up in US and Europe. I am not sure if they had developed protocols for prostate exams at that time, but head and body scans were done routinely. 3T came much later.
it is pretty simple. Biopsy takes samples from the prostate and if happen to miss the spot where the cancer is, then the result of biopsy would show "no cancer found" is misleading . MRI takes an image of the whole area , not samples. After MRI, if there is a sign of any abnormality, then targeted biopsy can be done. This is why MRI should be done before biopsy.
Good evening Nick
Thank you for letting me know.
I know I went through everything else leading up to the biopsy. I had every test and every probe they had back then.
I don't think I will ever do a needle biopsy again. I think once was enough
Thanks again and take care....Ken