Some of you may recall that I was upset that I wasn't given an opportunity
to sit in with my husband when he received his post-op report last July. At
the time I reported that his margins were clear but that one of the 2 lymph
nodes removed wasn't because that was what I thought he told me.
Months later he said that he didn't say that and that he told me the lymph
nodes were clear so I had him sign a letter to his doctor asking for a copy
of his pathology report. Anyway, he did that and we received the report.
Anyway, the story is that John's cancer was starting to get beyond the
prostate so the doctor had to cut a wide margin. The lymph nodes were clear
but the margins weren't.
His doctor repeatedly mentioned his small prostate to try to explain why his
cancer was so spread out but John got tired of hearing that. Two days
post-op, the doctor came to see John on his morning rounds while we were in
the middle of John's bath (I stayed in the hospital with him). The doctor
again mentioned that John had a small prostate to which John replied "not
anymore I don't." I didn't hear any reaction from the doctor but John told
me he blinked when he said that. John was irritable because he hadn't eaten
yet and was just tired of hearing that.

Signature
Debbie Trujillo
Please visit my website at http://mysite.verizon.net/res21yh8/index.html
David S. - 29 Apr 2004 01:12 GMT
Debbie:
What have the post op PSA's been?
Best of luck to you both.
Thank you.
David S.
> Some of you may recall that I was upset that I wasn't given an opportunity
> to sit in with my husband when he received his post-op report last July. At
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> me he blinked when he said that. John was irritable because he hadn't eaten
> yet and was just tired of hearing that.
Debbie Trujillo - 29 Apr 2004 20:23 GMT
0.00. Thanks.
> Some of you may recall that I was upset that I wasn't given an opportunity
> to sit in with my husband when he received his post-op report last July. At
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> me he blinked when he said that. John was irritable because he hadn't eaten
> yet and was just tired of hearing that.
ButtercupsDad@dog.net - 30 Apr 2004 13:37 GMT
>0.00. Thanks.
Those are the kind of PSA numbers we like to see.
ron - 30 Apr 2004 19:47 GMT
Hi Debbie...It's important to know what John's PSA was determined to
be. If you don't know the PSA, you can't spot changes if they occur.
PSAs are never reported as "0.00", they are also never reported as
"undectable". Both of those PSA descriptions have no informational
content. Even after the prostate is removed, there is a small amount
of PSA generated by various cells in the male body. Women also
generate PSA in their bodies. Usually, the amounts of PSA generated
by women or men without a prostate is so small that the commercially
available ultra-sensitive tests used today cannot detect it. It can
be measured in research labs equipped to do so and, in fact, falling
PSA appears to correlate with BCa in women.
PSA should be reported as some number like 3.45 ng/ml, or, if
undectable in the test, reported as "undetectable, less than (<)
whatever the lower sensitivity limit of the test is". The most common
PSA tests used today have lower detection limits of 0.1, 0.04 or 0.01
ng/ml. So if someone used the PSA test with a lower limit sensitivity
of 0.04, there test result would either come back as "some number" or
as "undectable, < 0.04 ng/ml."...Best wishes and good health, Ron
Beverley - 01 May 2004 15:13 GMT
Congratulations! Glad to hear the doc cut some extra away as a precaution.
Here's to many more years together!
Bev
> Some of you may recall that I was upset that I wasn't given an opportunity
> to sit in with my husband when he received his post-op report last July. At
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> me he blinked when he said that. John was irritable because he hadn't eaten
> yet and was just tired of hearing that.