Disgusted and a bit pissed

Steve1961 Member Posts: 301
edited August 2019 in Prostate Cancer #1

So get this I went to my PCP today .lgreat guy been going to him for probably 30years .so we had along talk about my so called journey I call it a fiasco myself ..I looked back at records while waiting wayyy back ..seems like I had a PSA of 2.8  back in 2007 at age 46 ..well I guess since it was under the 4.0 limit nothing was said ..welll in 2009 ten years back PSA rose to 4.5 had my first biopsy...hurtvlike all hell  ..well I guess when you hear u do t have cancer and you have an enlarged prostate and that’s the cause of the high PSA ..I guess your happy ...no one in my family had PC so I gues I wasn’t concerned ...BIG MISTSKE ...this [content edited by CSN support team] urologist well dressed well spoken fast talKing prick ...only took 6 samples ONLY 6...1year later 2010 PSA  4.9 another biopsy this time 7 samples with an enlarged prostate .wowreally wowwwwwww .i can’t believ I didn’t research any of this  i Probably had this [content edited by CSN support team] growing in me for over 10 years and dint realize it ......CHOOSE YOUR DR WELL THIS [content edited by CSN support team] PROBABLY COST ME MY LIFE ....


  • Clevelandguy
    Clevelandguy Member Posts: 757 Member
    Cancer growth

    Hi Steve,

     When my PSA got to around 4.5 and my Internal Medicine doc told me to go see a Urologist and subsequently a Oncologist, the Onco guy told me that probably I had cancer for around ten years.  Starts out very slow growing I guess but my Int. medicine got me to the right people at the right time.  My doc was doing PSA’s every six months until I got up in the 4.5+ range.  But hopefully we got it taken care of with my Robotic RP but Im still a nervous reck every year for my wellness check until I get the PSA number.  Don’t look back man, start looking forward with hopefully good future reports. Hopefully the worst is behind you and you will have a brighter future.  We never know when we will meet the grim reaper via cancer, a Mac truck, or a jealous husband(LOL).  I always try and live for the future because I can’t change the past so why dwell on it.  Just my 2c worth.

    Dave 3+4

  • Steve1961
    Steve1961 Member Posts: 301
    I know

    it’s tough ..being kinda a hypochondriac I can’t believe I didn’t research this more I guess I fell for this dr thinking he was real good 

  • Max Former Hodgkins Stage 3
    Max Former Hodgkins Stage 3 Member Posts: 3,726 Member
    Steve1961 said:

    I know

    it’s tough ..being kinda a hypochondriac I can’t believe I didn’t research this more I guess I fell for this dr thinking he was real good 

    Common, Steve

    Steve, many doctors today minimize the importance of PSA, partly due to the pressures from insurance companies.  Many primary care guys no longer even order routine PSA checks, so your doc is not necessarily outside the mainstream.  The same thing has been going on with mammograms for years, and it is mostly because of insurance carriers.

    When my PSA hit 4.1 my family doctor said "ignore it, it means nothing." This was despite the fact that it had been on a steady, linear increase for a few years.   I went and made an appointment with a urologist, and she recommended an immediate biopsy, which I had done a few days later.  It came back Stage II PSA.

    I approach health care as a logic problem, as in:

    " Result x may or may not be significant; professional opinions differ.  Which is more likely to address underlying problems:  Acting as if it is indeed a problem, or ignoring it?"

    Many here will tell a guy that "a PSA of 10 may be because you had sex or rode a bike; proves nothing."    Whereas the liklihood of behavior sending a PSA that high is profoundly less likely to be the cause than prostate cancer.    I say, don't assume what might be, verify instead.  This is not paranoia, it is due diligence.

    Obviously, acting as if it is possibly a problem is more likely to catch diseases early-on.  I know that people must avoid neurosis and hysteria.   But the conclusion to be vigilant remains sound and valid.