I met with the oncologist, and they did a good job of explaining the options in radiology that were available for the prostate treatment, including a clinical trial (that they seemingly hoped I would opt for). They did not have much good to say about surgical prostatectomy and had nothing good to say about HIFU.
I left feeling informed, but I was definitely leaning toward HIFU. I talked with the urologist where they do the HIFU, after sending over my medical records and qualifying for the procedure, I decided to go ahead with it.
My sense of this procedure was that I would have to endure some pain and recovery. That’s pretty much how it went. The doctor and his staff were very attentive to explaining what was going to happen, what it would be like after and what all the possibilities of outcome may happen.
The procedure was completely painless, the only tough part was sitting in recovery for so long waiting for the epidural to wear off. I needed to wear a catheter for 10 days, and that was the worst part of the whole ordeal (but that would’ve happened with surgery and for longer).
I did piss blood and have blood in my ejaculate for 2 months; it didn’t hurt, but was spooky to look at) I can now pee with normal velocity and volume; I have the ability to have an erection, although my semen is little to none (very disconcerting, but better than no function).
A year since HIFU, I have been PSA tested twice and have undergone a biopsy (again I was admonished for my whimpishness by a doctor who has not had the procedure done to themself). The PSA is within normal range and the biopsy indicated no presence of cancer. I will be receiving PSA tests quarterly, and based upon the results I may have to undergo another biopsy.
I still have sore feelings about having to deal with this, but considering all the possible outcomes, I am pleased with the results. If I were in this position of being diagnosed, I would’ve liked to have been better informed about all things.
Who can be treated with high-intensity focused ultrasound?
High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the ablation (destruction) of prostate tissue. Who the best candidates are for HIFU is somewhat debated by urologists.
HIFU can be considered:
What happens during the high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) procedure?
During high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU), an ultrasound probe about the size of your index finger is inserted into your rectum while you are asleep under anesthesia. The probe is positioned up to the level of your prostate. Your prostate is located immediately behind the rectum wall…
What are the advantages of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU)?
Advantages of high-intensity focused ultrasound include:
Is high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) safe for patients?
High-intensity focused ultrasound was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in about 50 countries including the United States. Outside of the US, the procedure has been used to treat prostate cancer in over 65,000 men.
What are the side effects or complications of high intensity focused ultrasound?
Even though high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is generally associated with less side effects than radiation or chemotherapy, it is not free from potential side effects and complications. These include:
“Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is common among adults, and recent reports suggest that 25%–50% of prostate cancer (PCa) patients use at least one CAM modality.
The most common CAM modalities used by PCa patients are vitamin and herbal preparations with purported antitumor effects despite only modest underlying preclinical or clinical evidence of efficacy.
In this review we provide a brief overview of the basic scientific and clinical studies underlying the most common herbal and vitamin preparations including
When available, prostate cancer clinical trial data are reviewed. Importantly, we have compared the concentration of these agents used in in vitro experiments to that likely to be achievable in humans. From the available data we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of CAMs for the treatment of prostate cancer patients outside of a clinical trial.
The purpose of this review is to more rigorously evaluate CAM therapy in prostate cancer and educate oncologists and patients. This review focuses on examples from the general classes of agents in common use…”