Question 1: There are two widely-asserted facts that seem to contradict one another, at least upon further investigation. Fact One: we hear that most prostate cancer is 'indolent', i.e. slow-growing and not inclined to metastasize, and so not really a threat to the patient's life. Fact Two: we're told that, these days, men with prostate cancer are not given Gleason scores of less than 6. But (in the only study I could find that gave Gleason scores by percentage) only 35.4 % were in Category 6. But if Fact One is true, wouldn't all those men with indolent cancers-- who, logic says, would be given a Gleason score of 6-- mean that those with Gleason score 6 would comprise a much higher percentage of the total than 35.4? Perhaps closer to 60%? Please help me resolve this seeming paradox.
Question 2: I have had a CT scan of the pelvis/abdomen, with and without contrast, and an MRI of the prostate, also with and without contrast. Both showed nothing even hinting at the presence of cancer in the bones, lymph nodes, the organs adjacent to the prostate, etc.: in short, nothing beyond whatever is going on in the prostate. So, in that context, what would the meaning be of a biopsy report with a high Gleason score, should I be unfortunate enough to get one? Ought I be grateful that, though my prostate cancer may be an aggressive SOB, fortunately it hasn't yet gotten around to doing me harm, and if I act fast, maybe I can keep it that way? Or is a more pessimistic interpretation of my situation warranted-- that perhaps CT scans and even MRIs are less precise than is commonly believed?