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 / June 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

PSA result

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Netmask - 20 Jun 2005 07:51 GMT
I am now one year out from my prostate operation last May - the results have
been 0 for the first 12 months and now the latest is up to 0.01. Is there
anything I should be doing other than regular 3 monthly check ups? Apart
from that I am feeling good, loads of energy and was fortunate not to have
any incontinence problems. I am 67. My Gleeson score was 6 (2+4).  Post op
there was no indication of spread beyond the prostate.

PROSTATIC SPECIFIC ANTIGEN (TOTAL)
----------------------------------
PSA Total:      0.01            ug/L       (<4.0)
                                           (Abbott Axsym
                                           method)
The influence of age on PSA levels is controversial.
Age related reference ranges quoted in literature (Oesterling et al):
Age in years         Reference range (ug/L)
40 - 49                  0.0 - 2.5
50 - 59                  0.0 - 3.5
60 - 69                  0.0 - 4.0
70 - 79                  0.0 - 6.5

---                      09/06/05          28/02/05      24/11/04
24/09/04
T/PSA (screen)  0.01                  0.0               0.0
0.0
James A Honeychuck - 20 Jun 2005 13:14 GMT
I don't think it's possible to have a reading of 0, not by any test I've
ever heard of.  The usual reading is "undetectable below the value of
..."  I think there's a < missing from your latest reading.

Also, Netmask's result is in ug/L, apparently a misprint for micrograms
per liter, whereas PSA is usually given as mg/L, milligrams per liter.
Canada's medical service also has an online guide which uses ug/L:
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/pub/cancer/psa/psa_guide/qa.html

If it is possible for Canada's health service to measure to a degree
1/1000th more precise than in the US, that is news to me.

In short, I suspect Netmask's PSA has not risen at all.

jimhoney

> I am now one year out from my prostate operation last May - the results have
> been 0 for the first 12 months and now the latest is up to 0.01. Is there
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>  T/PSA (screen)  0.01                  0.0               0.0
> 0.0
Netmask - 20 Jun 2005 14:02 GMT
I am in Australia - I'm due to meet with my urologist end of the week. My
test were done via my GP as it is covered in that case by Australia's NHS
system as he 'bulk bills'. If my urologist referred me to the same lab it
would cost $70! Oz NHS system is a mix of Federal government funded Medicare
that provides (without means test or age considerations) universal public
hospital cover and GP cover if the GP agrees to 'bulk billing' signing a
contract with the government to only charge a negotiated fee and the various
private insurance funds.
It is virtually compulsory to belong to a Private Fund if you earn over
au$60,000 otherwise your income tax is increased by the amount you would pay
for private insurance anyway (at the low end of the range). I guess it's a
bit like the Canadian system - anyway I'm happy with the system as I said
elsewhere my all up out of pocket expenses for the operation and 10 days
accommodation in a private hospital in a private room was a little over
au$2,000.
As far as the measuring units I don't really know other than Australia is a
totally metric country - I've long forgotten how long a "mile" or a "foot"
is!

>I don't think it's possible to have a reading of 0, not by any test I've
>ever heard of.  The usual reading is "undetectable below the value of ..."
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>> 24/09/04
>>  T/PSA (screen)  0.01                  0.0               0.0 0.0
Charlie - 21 Jun 2005 03:10 GMT
>I don't think it's possible to have a reading of 0, not by any test I've
>ever heard of.  The usual reading is "undetectable below the value of ..."
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> If it is possible for Canada's health service to measure to a degree
> 1/1000th more precise than in the US, that is news to me.

When I met with the urologist a couple of weeks ago he mentioned that the
current PSA measuring equipment used in the hospitals and laboratories
measures to 2 decimal points. Apparently the largest private sector
laboratory for these types of tests has some plans to install equipment that
measures to 4 decimal points - if that is what you were referring to.

According to the urologist he could see very little, if any, advantage to
measuring to 4 decimal points as opposed to 2.

I'll try to remember to ask he or the lab when I go for my next PSA test the
end of August.

Charlie.

> In short, I suspect Netmask's PSA has not risen at all.
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>> 24/09/04
>>  T/PSA (screen)  0.01                  0.0               0.0 0.0
James A Honeychuck - 21 Jun 2005 03:50 GMT
Disregard my post.  The units of measurement here are beyond my
understanding this evening.

jimhoney

> I don't think it's possible to have a reading of 0, not by any test I've
> ever heard of.  The usual reading is "undetectable below the value of
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>> 24/09/04
>>  T/PSA (screen)  0.01                  0.0               0.0 0.0
 
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.