Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

low PSA, PCa with high Gleason score

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Harold - 18 Feb 2005 19:16 GMT
My comments are provided mostly to benefit, I hope, those folks
concerned about acquiring PCa or those recently diagnosed.  This
information is likely known to those of you have have dealt with PCa
for some period of time.

I know this subject comes up at times in this forum so below I will
describe my circumstances so, if by chance, it is helpful to others
concerned about PCa or perhaps just recently diagnosed.  In my opinion
there may be, amongst the general male population, some degree of
comfort if their PSA tests are what some physicians may call "normal".
That is less that 4.0.

I strongly urge all males 40 years and older (35 years if family
history of PCa) to have annual PSA's & DRE's and then keep your own
record of the results. Ask your physician for a copy of PSA lab test
result and his DRE finding.

while the actual PSA result is important to know what else to look for
is an upward movement in the results over time.

There is a general rule of thumb that if the PSA velocity (PSAV) is
more that .75 ng/ml per year further investigation to rule out PCa is
advisable.  I agree with that. BUT also important is the PSA doubling
time (PSADT) which is a measurement in months (or years) that it is
taking your PSA to double in value. A PSADT less that 12 years is
deemed to be suitable for further PCa evaluation.

My case:
...............PSA.......DRE
May...1993.....0.4......Normal per family Internal Medicine M.D.
July..1994.....0.6......Normal per "
May...1995.....0.6......Normal per "
May...1996.....0.7......Normal per "
Aug...1997.....0.8......Normal per "
Mar...1998.....0.9......Normal per Urologist
Mar...1999.....0.9......not done - at least I do not believe it was.
Jan...2001.....3.9......Normal-but likely missed by M.D. in my opinion.
June..2001.....3.8......"Big, Ugly" nodule on prostate

Biopsy results:
Gleason 4+4=8
5 of 9 biopsy cores positive for cancer.
% cancer in 5 cores was 50,70,80,90 & 100%.
Biopsy indicated peroneural invasion was present.
DNA ploidy was diploid per Dianon Systems.

Now a look at the 7 year pre-2001 historical PSA results will show a
low score - below 1.0 for 7 years.  The PSA velocity was about 0.10 -
well below the 0.75 deemed to be a red flag level.

However the PSA doubling time was a fairly fast 5.1 years and much
faster that the 12 years deemed to be a red flag level.

My medical oncologist treating my case says that, in his opinon, even
when my PSA was at 0.9 that PCa likely existed and tests should have
been done to rule in or rule out PCa based on a PSADT of 5.1 years.
Unfortunately that was not done at that time.

However during my years of innocence, before 2001, whilst I did have
some awareness of PSAV I was not aware of PSADT and neither were my
physicians, I think.

Of course there is more to the story but I'll stop here.  A final
closing comment is that just because someone has M.D. after their names
they are not necessarily - and most likely not - very knowledgeable
about PCa.  Soak up as much knowledge as you can then question , yes,
challenge, yes, demand that your doctor be very good in treating PCa.
If he/she is not then fire them and find someone who is.
Stephen Jordan - 18 Feb 2005 19:29 GMT
(snip tale of medical ineptitude)
>  
> Of course there is more to the story but I'll stop here.  A final
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> challenge, yes, demand that your doctor be very good in treating PCa.
> If he/she is not then fire them and find someone who is.

As may be known, I fired my rad onc about two weeks ago because he was
ignorant of certain aspects of PCa treatment that were outside his
specialty. He put me at risk, which I discovered on my own.

Then, he refused to read an analysis of my case by Stephen B. Strum, who
should be known at least by reputation to all here.

Overboard he went. I don't have to put up with crap, and I won't.

Regards,

Steve J
__
"'MD' does not mean 'Medical Deity.'"
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD
Steve Kramer - 20 Feb 2005 12:28 GMT
> Overboard he went. I don't have to put up with crap, and I won't.

I read these and thank God I got a good uro right up front.  I would not
have had nearly the wherewithal to even question my uro, let alone fire him,
at that time in my life.

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3bN0M0
Seminal Vesicle involvement, Neg margins
PSA  .1  .1  .1  .27  .37  .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA  .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05
PSA  .07 .05 .06 .05

non Illegitimi carborundum

keith340@webtv.net - 18 Feb 2005 19:52 GMT
Harold you have hit the nail on the head...the age of innoncence or lack
of pca knowledge sould be over for both docs and patients...I was at my
monthly local pca support group meeting this past week and the same
topic was discussed...my local group consists of men whom have had all
treatment types and the speakers are usually docs from all treatment
types...the general consensus of the group is that ignorance about pca
is still bliss on both sides..."keep pca awaress alive"

Keith Lundy/So. California
40 Proton Beam Radiation Treatments
Loma Linda  Univ.Med Ctr..3/03-5/03
Leonard Evens - 18 Feb 2005 21:48 GMT
> My comments are provided mostly to benefit, I hope, those folks
> concerned about acquiring PCa or those recently diagnosed.  This
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> some awareness of PSAV I was not aware of PSADT and neither were my
> physicians, I think.

I was aware of PSA velocity, and in fact that is how my prostate cancer
was found---by me, not by my primary care physician.  But I wasn't aware
of the doubling time rule when used to detect early prostate cancer.  Do
you have a reference handy?

You are certainly right that you can't always trust even a good doctor.
 These days managed care puts a lot of pressure on doctors not to spend
to much time on any case, and often they won't look at the patient's
history if test results look "normal".   In my case, it was a bit
subtle, and my doctor did notice it was over 4.0 and suggested another
test in a couple of months.  But he had completely forgotten about the
PSA velocity issue despite the fact we had discussed it previously.  I
had to bring it to his attention and then he referred me to a urologist,
who of course knew all about it.   But in your case, that sudden jump to
 3.9 should have been a red flag.

> Of course there is more to the story but I'll stop here.  A final
> closing comment is that just because someone has M.D. after their names
> they are not necessarily - and most likely not - very knowledgeable
> about PCa.  Soak up as much knowledge as you can then question , yes,
> challenge, yes, demand that your doctor be very good in treating PCa.
> If he/she is not then fire them and find someone who is.
Harold - 18 Feb 2005 22:53 GMT
> I was aware of PSA velocity, and in fact that is how my prostate cancer
> was found---by me, not by my primary care physician.  But I wasn't aware
> of the doubling time rule when used to detect early prostate cancer.  Do
> you have a reference handy?

My response to Leonard and to all

There are numerous articles available about PSA Doubling Times and the
easiest way to find them is a Google search for: PSA Doubling Times

There are also several references to PSA doubling times in Dr. Strum's
"A Primer on Prostate Cancer and page references can be found in the
index.

For various PCa nomograms including a calculator for finding your
doubling time rate can be found at:

www.mskcc.org/mskc/html/10088.cfm

click on: Calculate your treatment choices with our nomogram

It requires Macromedia Flash 6.0 to utilize nomograms.

Also there is a PSADT calculator at:

http://kevin.phys.unm.edu/psa/

Every man needs to maintain a clear record on what is his PSA, PSA
velocity and PSA doubling time and, of course, his DRE findings.

If your PSA is increasing, even just a bit, and your PSA velocity is
increasing and / or your PSA doubling time is decreasing then locate a
very good physician skilled in the fine art of PCa treatment and tell
him you want your PSA values to be thoroughly investigated.

A comment on biopsy.  In my opinion it sounds worse that it is.
Obviously the idea of a physician, and likely an assistant to help,
sticking an ultasound wand into your rectum then firing needles through
your colon into your prostate will bring sweat to the brow of the
toughest man around.  At least in my case, there was a brief sting
followed by another slightly more noticeable sting but it was less than
I imagined and after it was done I got up, walked out and drove home.
Not a big deal.

If a biopsy can help detect PCa at an earlier stage, when it is more
treatable, don't put it off out of fear of the process.  Real fear sets
in when you find out A BIT LATE that you have PCa and then anger sets
in when you realize you could have detected it earler but were afraid
to do so.
Stephen Jordan - 18 Feb 2005 23:47 GMT
On February 18, Harold wrote, in pertinent part:

> A comment on biopsy.  In my opinion it sounds worse that it is.
> Obviously the idea of a physician, and likely an assistant to help,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I imagined and after it was done I got up, walked out and drove home.
> Not a big deal.

If a patient is concerned about the pain, and there can be pain, request
anasthesia. It's the patient's right.

> If a biopsy can help detect PCa at an earlier stage, when it is more
> treatable, don't put it off out of fear of the process.  Real fear sets
> in when you find out A BIT LATE that you have PCa and then anger sets
> in when you realize you could have detected it earler but were afraid
> to do so.

Bingo. Especially the words, "real fear" and "A BIT LATE."

Regards,

Steve J
__
"Natural laws have no pity."
--Lazarus Long
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.