Why didn't my doctor treat suspicious findings 10 years ago?

It's completely understandable to feel frustrated when looking back and wondering if earlier action could have changed the course of treatment. Many patients experience these same feelings and questions about timing of interventions. Medical decisions often involve weighing risks and benefits at each point in time, and what seems obvious in hindsight isn't always clear when those earlier decisions were made. These are important concerns to discuss with your current healthcare team, as they can help explain the reasoning behind different approaches to monitoring versus active treatment.

I share your feelings. Year one at age 73 I had a somewhat high PSA score. Doctor recommended no action wait and see what my PSA would be in a year. Year two PSA was low (but keep in mind PSAs have a high incidence of false negatives and positives). Year three another high PSA. Finally sent for diagnostic MRI, PET scan and biopsy. Gleason score 9 prostate cancer occupying one half of the prostate. Only good news it is still only in the prostate. So, 18 months later after; brachy therapy, five weeks of external beam radiation and three rounds of ADT, still in the fight to win. But still have this feeling that it was insurance companies that blocked more diagnostic tests the first time my PSA was high. They keep telling all of the men to get tested PSA because early intervention increases your chance of survival. Well my cancer was allowed to grow for an unnecessary two years before detection and intervention. So it is still confined to my prostate but is the worst most aggressive form of prostate cancer. Early testing can save men’s lives. But it needs to be coupled with early treatment to.