HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

Why not more postings here on Focal Laser Ablation?

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 9/27/2015 11:26 AM (GMT -5)
I do understand that it is not "approved" but shows initial promise.

And it is still early on.

However, as someone that has a pretty large prostate, suffered from BPH 20 years or more, it seems like a "kill two birds with one stone" solution.

PCA3 score was 49, get results from 3T enhanced MRI, and PHI next week. Will add to sig.
Posted 9/27/2015 12:22 PM (GMT -5)
There was a very recent paper reporting on, I think 15 patients. 13 were cancer-free after one year, and I think two had ED issues, so it was a fairly positive summary.

There is a forum where there are frequently postings about FLA, and it certainly has its enthusiasts.

But, they only mention the same two or three doctors who are working with FLA.

So far, so good, but a lot more experience is probably necessary before it is widely discussed and recommended.
Posted 9/27/2015 1:40 PM (GMT -5)
Ken,

When I was on AS and researching FLA, I found this forum had lots of information: /www.inspire.com/groups/us-too-prostate-cancer/discussion/focal-laser-ablation-patients/?reply_sort=asc&page=2#replies I was also able to get a consultation with Dr Walser by submitting my medical file and imaging for his review. I think Dr Marks at UCLA also does focal laser.
Posted 9/27/2015 3:14 PM (GMT -5)
I count around 30 threads on the subject when I put it in the search bar- I think that's a lot considering how infrequently it's used.
Posted 9/27/2015 6:06 PM (GMT -5)
Allen, I have also been following the posts on that other forum, just in case my situation ever changes.

I recall that there are posts almost daily by enthusiastic patients, mostly to maintain the visibility of the thread. I kind of have the impression there is a marketing/evangelistic tone to that forum, pushing FLA with little hesitation.

Now, FLA may turn out to revolutionize PCa treatment, but there simply has to be more of a track record.
Posted 9/27/2015 6:21 PM (GMT -5)
I didn't actually search, but have been reading the forum pretty carefully for about six weeks or so. Saw a reference to it in a thread here, followed the link and the other forum does have a number of enthusiastic posters.

Having said that, I won't know till next week even halfway where I am at but it is nice to find another potential alternative that supposedly has fewer side effects. I doubt that there is such thing as a holy grail for everyone that solves the problem with minimal side effects. However, I wish to consider all reasonable alternatives.

I am definitely an active surveillance type of person that would go for minimally invasive action, preferable to more aggressive action depending on how test results come out and potential gleason score.

I am well aware that the jury is still out on FLA. Even so, SBRT was new at some point, as was other currently well thought of solutions.

We all have different perspectives and preferences, along with differing gleason scores and diagnostics. To me, this is another potential solution (provided that I qualify) for which I wish to learn more about both pro and con.

At the same time, I have seen sometimes that regardless of subject matter various forums at various times seem to hit on what they think may in fact be some sort of " holy grail" whereas in several years that particular subject becomes mainly a historical reference rather than a new path.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply