Of course, since I’m posting this, I think they do. Most disatisfaction with medical, is not getting diagnosed soon enough, but are surgeons more likely to over state the need for surgery? I have been on both sides of this dilemma. Took for ever to get Multiple scerlosis diagnosed. Biopsy for prostate cancer was initially mis read to indicate higher Gleason score. Made me choose surgery instead of perhaps, another option. ALWAYS GET A SECOND OPINION.
Hi, JB, glad to be back on answers just to see your responses. Always, succicent and honest. Keep the faith, and keep swinging for the fences.
Thank all of you. Explores my question with integrity. The real problem I refer to on biopsies, and taking into consideration different interpretation, is a hospital sending out pathologies to cheapest facility. This urology office is right on hospital grounds, has a top ten hospital in cancer treatment nearby. My urologist was head resident at the CTC. I don’t know why he didn’t get hired there, but he told me, ‘to work closer to home.’ He is an excellent surgeon. I had no complications. He started PSA within 3 months, which because of my high Gleason, found to be misread by a subsequent urology department at the CTC, indicated aggressive treatment. I am glad for this. Seven years from my diagnosis. Accelerating PSA, mass in prostate bed, but otherwise health. Having cyrosurgery in April. Thank you for your concern. I can’t pick best answer since, all excellent.
Also, I don’t know if Jeanne B lives in Nevada, but my brother-in-law mad a survey of practise of surgery, outcomes, pathology, etc., and found much to be alarmed on these issues. He is a PhD. Also, it might be doctors starting practise are not given enough cases, and might be too prone to go to high side of perceived risk. As I said, I’m glad in my case I took all suggestions.