Anyone here pursuing natural treatment/containment options?

Yes...proper nutrition and exercise...and also a variety of known cancer killing supplements.
AFA the vitamin E and Selenium...there's more to that than just saying they can cause prostate cancer. There is more than one type of vitamin E. The gamma-E is actually a potent prostate cancer fighter, but it's best to combine the E types rather than just take the alpha, which is what was used in the studio that claims it caused cancer.
The Selenium and E... they need to be taken with other vitamins, and then the combination is positive. No one should just be overdosing on one type of E... or any vitamin, by itself.

There are also a number of other supplements that fight prostate cancer...a number of Asian mushroom extracts and AHCC, modified citrus pectin...and quite a few other herbs and supplements. A balanced vitamin intake is just part of it. Likewise, increasing your pH to a more alkaline state works against cancer cell growth.

This is just a basic overview...but there is a rather lengthy list of natural ways to fight prostate cancer (and cancer in general) that can increase a positive outcome much more than just the basic nutrition/diet adjustment...though certainly there are also quite a few foods that are known for their cancer fighting properties...things like broccoli, apples, berries...etc.

Would like to hear of any other people here who are opting to fight it naturally. The option of AMA approved treatment is always there, but if the diagnosis isn't extream, it might be worthwile to consider the natural options...becuase once any of the medical treatments paths are taken, you can't undo them and go back in time to try a natural approach.

Oh...can you say what was your initial diagnosis when you decided to actively monitor rather than treat?
What type of proecess have you used over the 9 years to monitor rather than treat...PSA...MRI...biopsies.....all lf the above...?

hopeful and optimistic said:

.

click my name to the left; you will see what my initial diagnosis was; what diagnostics tests have been, and the results of these tests ....OK, your turn, what is going on with you?

I looked at your diagnosis and testing details....and WOW...unless I lost count, you've had about 8 biopsy procedures over the last 9 years! That’s a lot, and to be honest, something I am looking to avoid…but it seems that most urologists only know to keep doing repeat biopsies in order to keep diagnosing and re-diagnosing the PCa.
One has to wonder how much all those needle biopsies are damaging the prostate to where it might make more sense to just have the surgery and remove it….?

OK…you asked for it…so here’s my story… in great detail and length.

I’ll be turning 64 later this month. I’m in an very good health otherwise, and have never felt any prostate symptoms and still do not to this day. No urination issues, or any other signs that my prostate was/is bothering me.

This all started with the PSA scores…beginning to gently rise over the last few years. My GP’s practice sets 2.0 as their norm…when in reality, that’s a little on the low side when you get older, and other practices use 4.0 as the top of the “normal” scale when you are hitting around 60….but PSA isn’t all that much of a defining test anyway, and if there’s any one thing that is valuable from PSA testing over time…is seeing the rate at which it rises. A slow rise beginning in late middle-age is common, and from what I understand, as long as the rise is less than .75 over the course of a year, it’s not absolutely indicative of anything odd… but when the numbers go way up, and beyond double digits, it makes sense to follow it up, regardless of your age.

So…over the course of about 4-5 years, my PSA crept up until fall of 2016 it had just crossed the 5.0 line to 5.32, and I decided to follow up with more detailed testing with my local urologist, which I first assumed would automatically be a biopsy, which I didn’t really want…but, with some research I found that MRI screening was now able to give initial indication if there was something there that needed to be biopsied.
Initial MRI was done on a T1.5 system with updated software for prostate imaging, and I had the torso “wrap” plus the IV contrast.  Two lesions were identified…approx. 4mm each, one left posteromedial apex peripheral zone and one approx. 4mm lesion on the right posteromedial mid-to-apex peripheral zone. Both were rated as PI-RADS 4.

The local urologist again wanted to do biopsies, but admitted that with the small sizes if the lesions, there was no guarantee he would be able to hit them using just the TRUS guided method…though he still wanted to do it. I was not ready and did some more checking over the next few weeks and found that there was a new urine test (TMPRSS2:ERG & PCA3) done by MLabs at University of Michigan that could provide a non-invasive screening and probability score for PCa. I then asked my urologist, and we did the test.
The MLabs report came back:
PCA3 = 15 and TMPRSS2:ERG = 3
Prostate Cancer Risk Score: 31% (95% Confidence Interval: 26 – 35%)
High Grade Prostate Cancer Risk Score: 14% (95% Confidence Interval: 11 – 18%)

Not horrible, but still some concerns, and the urologist again mentioned doing the biopsy, but seeing that I was nervous about it, and considering the small size of the lesions to be targeted, he suggested I go to a more specialized urologist where they have the ability to do the MRI fusion imaging.

I found one at a specialized prostate cancer center. He did a PSA check (dropped from 5.32 to 4.9)…did a DRE and noted the prostate was a little enlarged, but nothing odd felt.
We then scheduled another MRI in preparation for the possible fusion biopsy…and he noted that the original MRI was done with a T1.5…but he was going to use a T3, also with IV contrast, which would give a better picture.
The T3 MRI results came back, also noting only the same two 4mm lesions in the same spots….and they were downgraded from the previous MRI (PI-RADS 4)... to PI-RADS 3 on the right and PI-RADS 2 on the left.

OK…some hand-wringing, but I came this far, and as much as I wanted to avoid any biopsies, my logic won out, and I decided that I wanted more information…so he did a targeted biopsy of the two lesions and a few cores in and around.
At this point, all my screening and discussion is with this new urologist, and I am no longer seeing my local urologist…though I may see him out of convenience if/when I do PSA checks (or I may just do it all with the urologist who did the biopsies).

I’m not quite clear if he did 12 or 20 cores…because on the pathology report the summary states “Standard 12 Core Biopsy” and that the number of cores total 12….but when you go through the report and count the individual biopsy notations in each area…it comes to 20.
Likewise, on another report…the urologist said 20 cores…so a little confusion there.

That said…the pathologist found cancer in two cores…and the one interesting note was that the pathology was “reversed” from the T3 MRI… where the MRI predicted cancer on the right side and not on the left…the pathology found it on the left side, and not on the right.
One core showed 3+3=6 in approximately 35% of the core, and the other one showed a 3+4=7 involving 55%...BUT…the pathologist noted that the percentage of Gleason pattern 4 was only approximately 5% in that 55% of that core.

My urologist has assigned clinical stage T1c for my PCa.

We then took the next step and sent out the one core that kicked up the 5% of Gleason 4 to Genomic Health for their screening.
They gave me a score of 29 where 32 is the median score going from 0 (more favorable) to 60 (less favorable)…and they gave me a 1% chance of prostate cancer death within 10 years and a 6% chance of metastasis within 10 years….with a 46% chance that upon prostate removal, they would find more adverse pathology.

This was the report where my urologist wrote to Genomic Health that I had 20 cores done…but he told me he did 12 and that’s what's on the biopsy report.
What kinda bugged me here is that it was only because of that approximate 5% of Gleason 4 that my urologist put me in the intermediate group instead of low risk…and that’s what Genomic Health also used as the base guide, and did all their percentages and probability from an intermediate group perspective...instead of low risk group.

That’s where I am today. All of the above from the initial MRI with my local urologist up to the Genomic Health screening occurred over one year…from Jan 2017 to Jan 2018.
The original MRI was in January 2017…and the second, T3 MRI was in October 2017…and both showed about the same thing, in general.

So now I’m left with considering a follow-up “mapping biopsy” which is what the urologist wants to do now…and he is suggesting some form of treatment…cryo, radiation or removal.
I am wanting to do active surveillance without any follow-up “mapping biopsy”…but he feels I should do it anyway, even if we agree to go with surveillance.

My course of action is to adjust me lifestyle, something that I had already begun knowing that there was the possibility of positive PCa findings…and also to utilize a variety of natural “cancer killers” to slow down and possibly eliminate it naturally…and I would like to only use follow-up PSA testing, physical exams and MRI screenings to monitor any changes…all which are non-invasive screening potions.

I’m not putting formal medical treatment off the table completely…just don’t want to dive into it right away. I would like to give the natural approach at least an opportunity to have some effect…and only then if more/new red flags pop-up with the PSA, DRE and MRI screening down the road…then I would consider another biopsy or just move to one of the whole-gland treatments.
Of course, if the natural approach and subsequent screening is not showing adverse PCa progress…then I would just continue the natural approach and non-invasive screening.
I just don’t think I need to jump into any treatments right now…or more biopsies, which can’t be good for such a small living organ….endless stabs with needles, and the ripping out of tissue. It’s kind of weird that the prostate is the only organ that is often subjected to endless biopsy procedures.

Like I said...seems like most people here end up doing some type of AMA approved treatment or process.

This is not about ignoring the doctors and "treating myself"...it's about NOT jumping into treatments and procedures that may not be necessary, that can cause more damage, and that don't provide any kind of 100% guarantee. Check out the stats for treatments…including the side effects and risks and the type of long-term “guarantees” they give you…. though most doctors never “guarantee” anything, and they never use the word “cure”.

Looking at your own path...apart from multiple biopsies...you've done very little to treat yourself, so in effect, you are just waiting and watching, regardless what the added biopsies have shown to you. That’s not any different from what I am talking about…I’m only saying there are also natural ways to fight the cancer…rather than just wait and watch it.

My intent is to not just wait and watch, but to attack the problem naturally as much as possible. It's not about just "eating right"...there are numerous cancer fighting natural supplements that have been shown to reduce the spread and even stop/kill cancer cells.
I'm not seeing the downside of utilizing them to the fullest to see what difference they can provide...BEFORE I opt for some AMA approved treatment or additional procedure.
There's is always the option of deciding to get medical treatment...something you yourself have not done even though you know you have PCa...so I'm not understanding your "warnings" to do something about my own PCa..? 
I'm sure some of your doctors over the last 9 years have suggested you treat your PCa...yet you did not follow their advice either. Do you feel it was foolish not to follow their treatment advice?

AFA more biopsies...with modern MRI screening, the same way they pinpointed the two lesions that were biopsied, they can also see if those lesions are growing and/if other new lesions have formed...BEFORE I get more biopsies.
I just don't need more biopsies now...which was only suggested because we talked about cryo, and he wanted to first map things out so to know how much to freeze.
At this point I'm not looking at the cryo anymore, because it's going to leave too much in question.
If/when I decide on a medical treatment path, I think I will opt for whole gland treatment...which I guess is either one of the radiation procedures or surgery.
I would think surgery makes more sense, because it leaves the option of follow-up radiation down the road if things are not 100% cleared up with surgery...BUT...that's all down the road at this point. I don't see that treatment is needed for now, and by slowing things down a bit, by slowing down the rush to make some *permanent* decisions…I can at least try to attack this more naturally as my first line of defense, and it will not in any way put me at greater risk over the next year, IMO...and I will do the non-invasive screening to keep an eye on things…but medical treatments are not completely off the table if say…a year from now if the PSA, DRE and MRI show something more of concern than what we have now.

I know all the urologist will sell repeated biopsies as their most accurate diagnostic tool...but that's just the AMA approved urological path. I've spoken with and read other views from doctors (like the one you mentioned) who see even repeated biopsies as a bad idea. Oh sure...they're a great diagnostic tool for the urologist...but DO THEY REALLY INCREASE YOUR SURVIVAL?

Anyway...I will check out some of the links you noted...but I think some folks here should check out links for natural alternatives to combating PCa...here's a few.
 

https://www.naturopathic.org/content.asp?contentid=505

https://prostate.net/articles/12-natural-prostate-cancer-killers

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/06/survive-prostate-cancer-without-surgery.aspx

http://www.raysahelian.com/prostatecancer.html

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/17/health/alternative-vs-conventional-cancer-treatment-study/index.html ("Prostate cancer patients showed no increased risk by choosing alternative medication.")

These are just some of the links that I've gone through...there are more, just Google for natural ways to fight prostate cancer. There are things beyond just "eating right", "exercise" and taking your One-A-Day vitamins...but I think the main problem is that 1.) modern medicine doesn't want to study "herbs" and "vegetables"....and 2.) the whole AMA approved process of screening, diagnosing and treating PCa, is pretty hard-coded, and it takes years for something new to be studied or even considered...never mind actually approved by the FDA and AMA. Modern treatments and pharmaceuticals all have risks and plenty of side effects…so they are also experimenting and we are the beta testers to a great degree.

Again...this is not about treating one's self blindly, and completely ignoring what the doctors are saying...it's about taking a little more control and not rushing into something that you will not be able to undo later on.
I think you've been doing that yourself for the last 9 years...avoiding modern medicine to a great degree.

I would still like to hear from anyone here that hasn’t simply followed some approved AMA protocol and not much else…but looking through the many threads, I’m get the feeling this is not the place for that.

hopeful and optimistic said:

.

You said, "Again...this is not about treating one's self blindly, and completely ignoring what the doctors are saying...it's about taking a little more control and not rushing into something that you will not be able to undo later on. 

I think you've been doing that yourself for the last 9 years...avoiding modern medicine to a great degree. "

False, I am being treated at a center of excellence, being monitored in an Active Surveillance protocol. Active Surveillance is recommended for low risk prostate cancer patients. I posted the following on the "about me" page.

"Active Surveilance for delayed treatment is a very viable treatment decision for low risk prostate cancer, since 97 percent of men with LRPC are likely to die of something other than prostate cancer. The pathologic stage of patients who are closely monitored, is similar to initally treated patients with LRPC, so the treatment decisions will be very similar. I selected Active Surveilance as my treatment decision in March, 09 . I plan to continue with this treatment option for the rest of my life if I can. If not I feel that I will still be able to seek any necessary treatment"

Mick, I am following the Active Surveillance protocol because I have complete confidence in my doctor. As you notice I have had several evaluation tests rhat show me to be a LRPC patient. 

Mick, to be honest, you have not had sufficient tests to indicate that you are a low risk prostate cancer patient. In fact the amount of involvement of the 3+4=7 that you exhibit may indicate that an active treatment is necessary. I did not mention this in my previous post, but this is the reason that you need a second opinion on the pathology and a follow-up biopsy for the area surrounding the 3+4=7 core as your doctor recommended.

You also mention,

" It's not about just "eating right"...there are numerous cancer fighting natural supplements that have been shown to reduce the spread and even stop/kill cancer cells. 

I'm not seeing the downside of utilizing them to the fullest to see what difference they can provide...BEFORE I opt for some AMA approved treatment or additional procedure. "

Your statement is simply not true. Natural supplements do NOT exist that will reduce the spread and even stop/kill cancer cells. . Please be advised that AMA treatment is based on  evidence based science. 

You said, ".it's about NOT jumping into treatments and procedures that may not be necessary, that can cause more damage, and that don't provide any kind of 100% guarantee. Check out the stats for treatments…including the side effects and risks and the type of long-term “guarantees” they give you…"

This is true. All active treatments have side effects, some more than others. You will have to research the various treatments that are available and the side effects of each. For example cyro therapy that your doctor is interested in administering to you will cause ED. The chances of ED are 100 percent (I wonder if he shared this with you). At any rate there are various active treatments that are available if necessary with varying side effects. During the last nine years I explored these various active treatments so I can make the best choice for me. 

In my opinion you need to determine if you have low risk prostate cancer and can continue with active surveillance by getting appropriate tests and second opinions, while you explore the various active treatments that are available. I and others at this board can provide you with insights if you so wish. Doing your own treatment with "natural" food, supplements , etc. is a fools game. I understand that you want to avoid an active treatment with all potential side effects. Each of us can refuse treatment as you apparently are; however you are NOT QUALIFIED to make a decision based on medical science.

 

OK...we are now debating the same things over and over.

My point about your active surveillance is that you are showing a Gleason 3+4=7 4mm (5 % Gleason pattern 4) occupying 30% of biopsy tissue...and the rest are 6. This is pretty much THE SAME as what I've posted for my own biopsy.
Not sure how/why you seem to feel that my desire to also do some surveillance initially...is throwing caution to the wind…?

You also keep saying that you are being actively "treated"...when in fact you are only being actively watched. Maybe we are miscommunicating what constitutes "treatment"...?
From reading your story...I don't see that you have received any actual "treatment".

AFA the natural ways to fight cancer...read the info in the links I posted.
Even Dr. Klotz who you mentioned, is doing research on selected micronutrients for combating prostate cancer... THAT's what I'm referring to when I say “natural ways to fight PCa”...click on some of the links and read.

Anyway...I appreciate your time, and the link for the Klotz video, since his comments actually support what I am looking to do with my own PCa...to actively watch it for a while, as I'm only showing approximately 5% of Gleason 4 (3+4) in only 55% of one core sample, the other core sample showed only 3+3 in 30%...and the remaining biopsy cores showed NO PCa. That's exactly what Klotz was saying should be watched, with a 15 year 80% chance of no metastasis.
He also confirmed that for this type of diagnosis MRI was a good option to use before doing more biopsies...and waiting for at least a couple of years before doing that.

Oh...and why do you say I have not had sufficient tests...???
I had PSA tests, DRE, two MRIs, urine bio marker screening, and 12/20 core biopsies, and Genomic screening.
I think that's quite an extended amount of testing from all angles.
I just get the feeling like you're talking over me and not reading what I'm writing...and in some ways, you are 100% sold on your approach because you are in a clinical study, from which you can not deviate without leaving the study. I get that, and that's your line of thought and action… but I’m not ready to line up for endless biopsies just yet.

I'm confident that I don't need to do anything at least for the next year, maybe two, other than PSA, DRE and MRI...and only when those things show some new/additional concerns, will I opt for more biopsies or just go forward with medical treatment.
In the meantime...all that stuff in the links I posted for your reading...the natural ways to fight PCa...I will be hitting all of them, as I see little to lose in doing so.

Yup...we are in different dimensions.

First off...a confirmatory biopsy does not need to be done immediately after the initial diagnosing biopsy....in many cases it's recommended to be done within one year...or even two.

There is NOTHING negative about using PSA, DRE, MRI for screening prior to a second biopsy, and also that MRI can be used to better target that second biopsy if needed.
Meanwhile, during that year or so before the second biopsy is done, nothing is lost to utilize a natural approach to fighting PCa...only foolish people would ignore doing that.
The up side....when the PSA, DRE and MRI screenings are done prior to any second biopsy, and the results turn up better instead of worse...one might then hold off a little longer on the second biopsy, and follow up with additional PSA, DRE and MRI screenings UNTIL those screenings indicate that things are turning for the worse...and only then additional biopsies or just going for treatment would be considered. It’s the least invasive way to fight PCa…for as long as possible.

Like I said...you're involved in a study program, so you have already taken a specific path that you now are compelled to follow. That’s your choice.
Non-invasive active surveillance is what I want to start off with, and take the smaller, more conservative steps until there is a need to do more.

I'm surprised with all those biopsies you've managed to avoid the slew of potential high-risk infection issues and side effects, just from the biopsy procedures.
I also wonder how many more cores can they possibly need before they've poked holes in every square mm of your prostate...? …but I guess when it's a study, you're stuck with them endlessly studying your prostate with endless biopsies.

To tell the truth...I would have opted to just have it done with a treatment instead of 9 years’ worth of repeat biopsies and never-ending anxiety.
Yes, the PSA, DRE and MRI screenings also come with some anxiety, but at least I won’t have the concerns and anxiety about repeat biopsies, which are very invasive and full of risk... but we all must choose the best path for ourselves.

Sorry to trouble eveyone here with my attempt at discussing something more than just the AMA approved options.