Surgery for a high-risk case is certainly an option...but not a good option. This doesn't mean that it's not an option some people have taken, but they have probably not (perhaps unwittingly) effectively balanced cancer control with a minimization of treatment-related morbidity (aka QoL). See what I wrote earlier today in the thread titled:
Gleason 9 is surgery an option?But this conversation is getting ahead of itself by a step. According to the sticky thread
Newly diagnosed with PC? – read this thread first, Step #1 is to make sure you understand your "risk group," BUT if you read on past the first posting in that sticky thread, you find that Step #0—which needs to be done BEFORE Step #1—is to have your slides read by an prostate pathology expert...so that you can have high confidence that your "risk group" placement is solid. Surgery is a much more practical option for a intermediate-risk case (4+3, for example) than it is for a high-risk case (your current 4+4 status). By the same token, if your biopsy 2nd opinion goes the other way, to 4+5, for example, your GP5 is often an predictor of both local and/or distant failure...in which case surgery would have been waste.
Now, perhaps, you truly see the importance/value of that biopsy 2nd opinion...which I know you are pursuing...kudos to you!
If your risk groups remains "high," you'll still have some good radiation options.
Strength
Wisdom
Post Edited (NKinney) : 5/30/2018 9:28:28 AM (GMT-6)