I am writing on behalf of my dad, who is not as tech literate as I am.
He was diagnosed with adenocarcinoma of the prostate (suspicious nodule in the left peripheral zone) back in June 2023 following an initial MRI, biopsy and PSA test (results from those tests are below).
He was advised to actively surveil with a strong recommendation for HIFU as the next course of action, if the symptoms worsen, or the problem has spread.
A year on, he's just had a second MRI scan (although we don't have the printed results yet), which according to the radiology nurse, shows no signs of spreading, but does appear "more visible" and she used the word "progressed".
He hasn't yet had a second PSA test, nor has he had a second biopsy. Note that while he may choose not to have the second biopsy (let's see what the forum thinks), he is going for his second PSA test (early next week) .
I'll include a snapshot of the data interpreted as important below:
10/06/2023
PSA - 3.6
Gleason 3+4
Technique - 1.5mpMRI
Prostate volume - 3 (CC) x 2.6 AP x 3.5 (TR) cm
Volume - 15 cc
PSA density - 0.24 ng/ml/cc
Location - Left peripheral zone, at apex
NOTE - we don't yet have the written results of the second MRI yet. I presume that would be very useful to contextualise the last year's results... I'll chase again.
In any case, the hospital are STRONGLY urging him to go for HIFU now, and have even advised he not bother with the second PSA or biopsy.
Do you think the medical team has enough to go on to suggest HIFU treatment at this stage?
He is a 56 year old male, who hasn't presented any symptoms (that are directly attributable to prostate cancer, from our limited research). He is generally well, considering he smokes and drinks fairly regularly but not overly.
Any advise is really appreciated.
Thank you so much.
Z
Written by
Zudukk
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
In my experience, HIFU doctors are like used car salesmen, and they are desperately trying to sell your father a lemon. I suggest he find a new doctor.
I can't find many more recent studies or even opinion leaning one way or another.
Two follow-up questions I have:
1) If (another) biopsy suggests the issue is progressing, what would be the recommended treatment plan?
2) My dad seems to have bought what the salesmen are selling and is pretty convinced that HIFU is an agreeable course of action. So, I jmy question is, aside from the obvious side effects, what are the downsides to trying HIFU (apart from it not succeeding)? My research suggests that it wouldn't block (in the majority of cases) subsequent and more invasive treatments - what are your concerns with trying HIFU?
For 3+3, I've been told the guideline is no core over 50% . In my discussions, doesn't seem any 4 is safe for AS but that seems debateable among the medical community.
Your 2023 mpMRI seems to have been done using a 1.5 Tesla machine. If the current one is from a 3 Tesla machine some "progression" can be attributed to the enhanced imaging capability of the latter.
I see in other posts you're under NHS. I lived in Surrey and had staff so I am familiar with NHS. I have received 2nd opinions from the Royal Marsden for the past nine years. The experience you are describing seem contradictory to what I experience there and the experiences of my former staff. (Note I have been back in US for number of years).
Do you have recommendations in writing from a multidisciplinary team? And do you have second opinions on the mpMRI findings? (I find it odd and questionable practice that a nurse has commented on MRI findings.)
My tumor was also near the apex and so was recommended surgery over focal treatments.
I am fascinated by the seeming hateful bashings that occur in HU. Nine years ago I consulted with Professor Dr Mark Emberton at University College London. You might want to reach out to him for a 2nd opinion, especially on HIFU. Also, I found him to be very skilled with imaging findings. This link may be of interest. Hope this helps. All the best!
Find a radiation oncologist who is well practiced in MRI guided SBRT. In my experience, and living in New York City, which has the best options around, that treatment seems to be the gold standard, and often covered by insurance.
I sent a reference from urology literature currently that promotes. HIFU. I personally am a skeptic as I had only focal Gleason 7 on first 24 biopsies (they were reviewed pathology at NCCI center) and I went to Mayo for clinical trial of focal therapy. Before my treatment 8 months after first biopsy my repeat in MRI magnet biopsy showed an area of Gleason 8!
He definitely needs repeat biopsy as that is a part of active surveillance and to date no clear proof focal therapy beats AS. There are true believers in focal therapy and there are those making money on it. Approach it slowly and preferably at major center in a clinical trial
FYI - he's an NHS patient in London (UK), and doesn't have the means to seek many second opinions, although I'm sure he can ask to be switched to a different hospital, or even specialist.
So far, based on the diagnostics to date (1x biopsy, 1x PSA test, 1x blood test and 2x MRI scans) they've strongly suggest he opt for treatment. The options of which are:
1 (strongly recommended) - HIFU
2 (less strongly recommended) - radiation therapy
We still don't have the results of the second MRI scan, but by all accounts, they don't mean much anyway.
Interesting reply that suggested he was previously scanned with a different machine to that of the second scan. Hence the prominence (or higher resolution - to put it into my interpretation).
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
12-year post surgery PSA 
Panacur (fenbendazole) report
Another disappointing PSA
alarming PSA for a 26 year old?
2nd Opinion Recommendation for North Carolinia/Virginia/DC
