An Alternative to Biopsy: ProstaScint vs.MRI/MRSI

edited from a post from Taras on pralt-discuss

The two scanning procedures, from my experience (what I've heard and in talking with Dr. John Kurhanewicz, who runs the facility at UCSF), are quite complimentary. The MRI is best at picking up imagery closest to the prostate, i.e., the gland, seminal vesicle lymph nodes in the iliac and periaortal chains (those close to the prostate, say: bellybutton field).

The reason the spectroscopy is such a great tool is that it actually works by measuring certain properties of the tissue, namely choline and citrate, the former of which there are low incidences, the latter of which there are high, in cancer tissue.

In my case, I had a concordance between these two portions of the er/MRSI and the ProstaScint Scan; both showing iliac nodes. I can see where there is doubt on your part.

I think the ProstaScint is just starting to catch on as a great diagnostic tool. I don't think it competes with the er/MRI/MRSI. It adds some depth to the picture. Or in your case, has perhaps clouded the picture. I would think about having it redone in 6 months (I'm going back in a couple of months for both tests) and in the meantime, eating, exercising, meditating and living right.

If I had it to do over again. I would never have been biopsied. I would have used these two tests along with the PSA and the PSA II, coupled with the whole battery of other markers available, through blood.