Stanford vs. UCSF Surgery

Expat,

Where in Asia?   I spent about 12 years in Singapore, Malaysia, Japan and China.   There is some good work being done in Singapore and at Bumrangrad Hospital in Bangkok.   The CEO is an old golfing friend of mine when we both lived in Malaysia.   You might look into these areas, if you want to stay in the region.

Have you also done your research on other treatment methods such as the various radiation therapies?   I suggest you do so as they may be better for you than surgery.

JNF & Ziggymonster -- Thanks. Yes, I've been considering radiation as well but (to the extent I like any of my choices, which I don't...) am so far more comfortable with surgery. I'm based in Hong Kong. There is very good medical care here in many areas, but If I do surgery, will likely do it in the US given the surgeon/hospital volumes and what's at stake.

I'll check out both Stanford & UCSF. I wish both of you good health.

I had mine done by Carroll and the follow up care, including salvage radiation four and a half years later at UCSF as well. I did not research Stanford carefully; my initial research said that Stanford has great people as well but probably isn't on balance any better than UCSF. So I opted for the hospital that was closer to home (20 minutes). When mine was done in early 2010 Carroll said he had 700 laproscopic surgeries under his belt, and so he must be in the several thousand range now.

My surgery went well; recovery was fast, potency and urinary recovery was pretty good though not
100%. The first PSA was <.01 so he didn't leave anything visible behind.

Some comments:
1.) he was pretty accessible, especially given he's the department head of Urology and urological oncology so he's pretty busy.
2.) he is not locked into the mindset of "I'm a surgeon so I recommend surgery to everyone." he has a reputation of being pretty broad gauge thinker. He participated in a study with Dean Ornish, for example on diet, lifestyle, and prostate cancer.
3.) he's very very current on the research
4.) he is agressive in treatment but not extremely aggressive. For example, a couple of years my psa hit .05 and I was pushing him to move me into SRT . he said "wait, not quite so fast" (this is before the latest .03 research came out) but when I hit .09 with a rising trend, he said "go for salvage now" not waiting until the usual .2 threshold. I would say that Sholz and Myers would have had me start radiation at a lower level, maybe a year earlier or half a year. So if you want a super aggressive approach, be aware that you'll have to push for that. But I think that in general at major teaching hospitals you are going to see people stick pretty close to the "standard of care" outside the context of clinical trials.