Cryoblation anyone have experience with this?

Hi Ed

Didn't have Cryo but did experience IRE (Irreversible Electroporation) ablation which uses high voltage electrical current to kill the cancer. Perhaps you know this already, Cryo and other technologies are sometimes used for Focal therapies treating just the cancerous lesion. Most often when a medium gleason score tumor is in an accessible position without any indication of metastasis outside of the prostate. The upside is that these procedures have significantly less side effects than the more common RP or RT which can be life changing for some. It's been three months since my procedure. The only side effect I'm dealing with is urgency to pee. It's manageable but it's all I can do hold it until I get to a place to relieve myself. I'm hoping this will improve with time. With a Focal procedure you'll need to stay on Active Surveillance with routine PSA tests, MRIs and occasional biopsies. I'm going for my first PSA test tomorrow. At 67 because I was a good candidate for a Focal procedure I thought it a good choice considering I still have the options of RP and RT. I think you can feel confident dealing with John Hopkins.

Hi,

If it was me I would do some research on the various ways you and your doctor team have selected to treat Prostate cancer and their success rates over time. Better to investigate now and not regret it later. Look at treatment methods, short term side effects, long term effects, expected survival rates 5,10 years out.

Dave 3+4

From the NCI website:

• Cryosurgery to treat prostate cancer can cause urine flow to be blocked, incontinence, impotence, and damage to the rectum. You are more likely to have side effects from cryosurgery if you have also had radiation therapy to the prostate.

That's a valid point. Perhaps the NCI web info on cryoablation should be updated?

With respect to the original post, as long as more 'classical' therapies (removal, radiation) are still possible after possible cryoablation failure, I do think the latter is a viable option. It's a hard decision, that's for sure.

Did you ask the Hopkins doc about failure rates (after 5 and 10 years) for patients such as you?

It seems that we all have similar experience in the decision process in the 3+4 Gleason group…I had so many opinions but I was eligible for Focal therapy (FT). In this specialized field of FT, there are so many type of treatments that I also got lost (Cryo, IRE and HIFU for example). In the end I chose a surgeon who had a lot of experience and he felt very comfortable that Cryo will a do a better job based on my tumor location. Regarding the data FT of the prostate is a very promising. The failure or recurrence is similar to some other standard treatment. It is mostly due to the fact that some candidates for FT should not have received such treatment to begin with. I saw many surgeons from good institutions to make sure that I was not making a mistake by doing FT. Last thing you are not burning any bridges of failure and you can still repeat FT, or do RP or RT.
I think the main side effect of FT is that you are on AS for a while…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087270/