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