Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer

Dr. Jeffrey Nix discusses the use of Active Surveillance for the monitoring and treatment of Prostate Cancer.

[s.chaisrisuk]

Surprising to see that this is such a very clear explanation and set criteria for active surveillance that still up to date 2024.

[paulsdrc]

When I was diagnosed I had a gleason 6 with PSA 6.9. The doctor was all about “active surveillance”, I got a referral for treatment and since 6 months had elapsed the new doctor wanted another biopsy, and then it was discovered that my tumor mass had more than doubled in 6 months. And the doctors scratched their heads and said “that shouldn’t happen, you don’t have s, all cell carcinoma”. But what should or shouldn’t happen has little to do with reality.

[docbrady]

An MRI is the most accurate and least invasive test so if you can get one that would be the way to go. The doctors try to talk you out of doing an MRI because they make zero on an MRI and they make thousands of dollars on a biopsy.

[CBL]

The last part of your video is particularly interesting. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer after having a random needle biopsy in March of 2020, 3+3=6 Gleason score, 1 core of the 12 of the samples taken. I’m African American and now wonder if I’m doing the right thing by electing to go on the active surveillance program. Is an MRI the best option at this point or is there another test to consider before the MRI? Thank you for the video.

[hourgmtchannel]

I'm 55 and with 2 back to back high 3's PSA'a the last 3.97 I pushed for a Multiparametric 3T MRI which showed nothing of concern. I was hoping that would avoid the biopsy but the Doctor still recommended it as it's still the most conclusive. Just got the results and 2 out of 12 cores show 3+3. My question is, if the MRI showed no tumor but the needed biopsy pulled 2 Gleason 6 cores, it that a tumor or just cells?