On Thursday 13th August I discovered I have prostate cancer. While I was in hospital as a result of my kidney injury after a mountain bike crash an examination discovered my prostate was enlarged (normal for some one of my age) and asymmetrical. Couple with a blood test that showed I had a high PSA (prostate specific antigen) reading of 7, I was advised to have a prostate biopsy as soon as I had recovered from the accident. I had this on Monday 27th July and met with the consultant today to let me know and discuss the options.
The biopsy took 12 core samples the positions for which were chosen on the basis of measurements of the enlargement. One of the samples revealed a low grade low risk cluster of cancer cells. These are of a slow growing type and are unlikely to kill me before I die of something else age related or an accident. Like most men with this type of cancer I would eventually die with prostate cancer rather than of it. I could just forget the whole thing, hope for the best, and get on with my life. The problem with this is that the biopsy may well have missed other areas of cancer one or more of which may be of the more aggressive type. In fact this would have been the case if no cancer had been found. Even biopsies are not conclusive when they find either none or low grade cancers.
So we started discussing the treatment options. The first on offer was something called active surveillance. This is appropriate for localised prostate cancer, that is cancer that is contained wholly within the prostate. Its the ‘wait and see’ approach. Blood tests are taken every three months to check the PSA level, physical examinations and possibly scans are taken less frequently and probably another biopsy every year. If things begin to go pear shaped then intervention treatments can swing into action at that point. Some men go years on this scheme and never appear to develop aggressive cancers or develop metastasis, the development of secondary malignant growths at a distance from a primary site of cancer, so-called secondaries. One problem with this is that physical examinations and scans cannot detect the micro ‘leakage’ of cancerous cells from the surface of the prostate. So the decision to adopt this strategy is based on the probability that the cancer is contained. Another problem is that the PSA level is not a reliable indicator of cancer anyway. Even if the level remains constant or goes down doesn’t mean that no aggressive cancers are developing. Apparently the most aggressive types don’t produce PSA. Finally many men on this programme still end up having interventionist treatments within the first 5 years and the delay can in some cases let the cancer develop to such an extent that it can only be managed rather than cured. If the cancer is detected early enough in many cases a cure is possible. Where the cancer has not spread a complete removal of the prostate can be the end of the matter, a complete cure. After a certain point the language of ‘cure’ is dropped.
So far the decision is between ignoring the whole thing ans hoping for the best or keeping an active eye on things in the hope that if the cancer develops it will not be too late for a curative treatment. I would like some notion of the odds on this. What percentage of the ignorers go on to develop more serious cancers, what percentage are still caught in time to be cured and what percentage have to have the condition managed and go on to die of it eventually. How many years do they on average last and what is the quality of their remaining lives? For those on active surveillance, what percentage eventful have to succumb to interventionist treatments and what are the outcomes in terms of longevity and quality of life?
Then the discussion moved to the interventionist treatments. The consultant I was speaking with was a surgeon so he admitted to a bias in favour of surgery. One option is for a radical prostatectomy, an operation to remove the prostate gland and some of the tissue around it. The operation may be done by open surgery or it may be done by laparoscopic surgery through, usually four, small incisions, i.e. key hole surgery. At the Bradford Royal Infirmary this is done robotically. da Vinci robot provides pioneering treatment at Bradford Royal Infirmary. Patient feedback on the robotic procedure.
The key point here is that if the cancer is local it offers the possibility of a complete cure but there is a danger of serious side effects; incontinence and erectile dysfunction (ED). These side effects are normal but in many cases are temporary. The incontinence is normally caused by loss of strength in the pelvic floor muscles so patients are encouraged to do regular exercises before and after surgery. I think a sphincter is removed during the operation so it is necessary to learn how to take more conscious control of your bladder. Initially a catheter is fitted but comes out after 2 or 3 weeks. From then on incontinence pads deal with trickles but this usually improves over a period of up to 10 months and a lot quicker for most. ED is largely down to nerve damage either side of the prostate but modern surgery techniques can often preserve these, or some of them at least. Again for most men this is something that improves over time. The seminal vesicles are removed as well so no sperm or seminal fluid is produced leading to dry ejaculations which can be uncomfortable until you get use to them. Both permanent incontinence and ED can be treated, the first by surgery and the latter by various techniques. It is only after removal that the prostate can be examined to see if the cancer was contained. If so a cure is likely. If not radiation can be used as plan B.
One reason to consider surgery is that radiation can still be used as a fall-back but if radiation is done first surgery is not usually possible because of damage done to the prostate. Surgery seems to leave open the possibility of more options in the event of continuing or secondary cancers. And radiation can have much the same side effects a surgery in terms of incontinence and ED. I’m seeing a consultant to discuss radiation options on the 27th August so will know more about the pros and cons then.
In the meantime I have a specialist nurse contact I can call any time with questions. I have started my pelvic floor exercises and am continuing to do some research. My first reaction on learning I had cancer and that it appeared to be low grade and low risk was to opt for active surveillance. I may still go for this but I’ve swung round a bit to the idea of surgery for a number of reasons. First the biopsy is inevitably inconclusive. I may have high grade cancer and delay would increase the danger of metastasis if this hasn’t occurred already. Psa and scans can’t be sure of this; only removal and analysis. Also it leaves open the possibility of follow up treatments if surgery is unsuccessful. The side effects are usually temporary and effect only a small percentage of patients. In any case other treatments are available for these.
Despite all this there is an excellent chance (that I would like to quantify) that my cancer is low grade, slow to develop and I could just live the rest of my life as normal. But it’s a risk. The reason I am still thinking about active surveillance, for perhaps a year anyway is that I had to pull out of a number of racketball and cycling events because of my accident. I’d like to play, if possible in the over 70s National Racketball Championships next July. By then I’d be due for another biopsy and could make the decision about surgery then.