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 / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Psa reading

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Mike - 25 Oct 2005 21:02 GMT
I had a gleason of 6 and a PSA of 6. I year ago I had 28 IMRT treatments
and seeds. After 6 months PSA was .15, after 9 months .2 and now after
12 months .3. It does not seem to be going in the right direction. My
urologists does not appear to be concerned. Is this progression normal?

mike
Steve Jordan - 25 Oct 2005 21:37 GMT
> I had a gleason of 6 and a PSA of 6. I year ago I had 28 IMRT treatments
> and seeds. After 6 months PSA was .15, after 9 months .2 and now after
> 12 months .3. It does not seem to be going in the right direction. My
> urologists does not appear to be concerned. Is this progression normal?

It's doubled in twelve months. Although in absolute terms the increase is
not much, it seems to me to require an explanation.

I note that Mike refers to his unconcerned *urologist*. A urologist is a
surgeon and IMO has no legitimate function in tx that does not involve
surgery. I most urgently recommend consultation with the radiation oncologist.

This has the distinct aroma of systemic PCa. Consultation also with a
medical oncologist would not be inappropriate.

Lastly, refer to the website of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute at
http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html for objective and authoritative
information. This is indispensable if Mike wishes to empower himself and to
be an active participant in tx decision-making.

Regards,

Steve J

"We must tailor the treatment to the nature of the disease. We must listen
to the biology."
-- Stephen B. Strum, MD
Alan Meyer - 25 Oct 2005 22:05 GMT
> ...
> This has the distinct aroma of systemic PCa. Consultation also with a
> medical oncologist would not be inappropriate.
> ...

Personally, I think there is zero evidence so far of
systemic PCa.

I think a medical oncologist would say the exact same thing
that the urologist said.

See my other response.

   Alan
Steve Jordan - 25 Oct 2005 22:26 GMT
Quoting me, in part:

>>This has the distinct aroma of systemic PCa. Consultation also with a
>>medical oncologist would not be inappropriate.

He responded:

> Personally, I think there is zero evidence so far of
> systemic PCa.

There is evidence that requires an explanation, as I wrote in the omitted
portion of my post.

With all due respect, Alan will find upon rereading what I wrote that I
*raised the question* whether it is systemic PCa that caused the rise in
PSA. I did not attempt to give medical advice or a diagnosis as some others
frequently do. Just recommended a consultation with a medic who could be
helpful.

> I think a medical oncologist would say the exact same thing
> that the urologist said.

The uro apparently declined to explain it; just sent Mike on his way. IOW
the uro said nothing (per Mike) that could be compared with what a med onc
might say.

Regards,

Steve J
Alan Meyer - 25 Oct 2005 23:46 GMT
> ...
> There is evidence that requires an explanation, as I wrote in the omitted
> portion of my post.
> ...

Well, you're absolutely right.  It does require explanation.

I hope the explanation that I gave in my other posting is the
right one.

> With all due respect, Alan will find upon rereading what I wrote that I
> *raised the question* whether it is systemic PCa that caused the rise in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> > I think a medical oncologist would say the exact same thing
> > that the urologist said.
...

Steve,

In principle, I think you're right again.  It never hurts to
consult an expert - which I certainly am not.

There are some tests besides PSA that indicate the presence
of metatstatic cancer (I'm thinking of bone scans, X-rays,
alkaloid phosphatase blood tests, MRI's, and maybe others) or
of recurrent local disease (digital rectal exam), but to my
knowledge, the chance of any of them showing anything on a
patient with a PSA of .3 is vanishingly small.

Assuming that the uro has not performed these tests, a medical
oncologist could perform them.  But the oncologist I see at
NCI told me he's never seen any of these show anything in the
absence of a convincing rise in PSA - above the level that I
was exhibiting - which is much higher than Mike's.

What to do depends a lot on your philosophy of medical diagnosis
and treatment.  You and I Steve have had this discussion before.
You prefer to err on the side of getting too much information
rather than too little where I have argued for not getting
expensive or invasive tests, or expensive medical consultations,
if the chances of their showing anything are insignificantly small.

In this particular case, I think there is another factor
militating for reluctance to see another doctor.  It is that
there's probably nothing to be done even if we have more
information.  Even if there were some evidence of disease
progression, the only treatment anyone would offer Mike is
hormone therapy.  But I would think it would be a mistake to
start HT at this time, no matter what.  Even if Mike still
has growing cancer, we don't know yet how fast it's growing or
when or if it will need treatment.  It might go 10 years or
even longer without posing any threat whatsoever - years
when Mike could be living without the nasty side effects
of HT.

I apologize if the tone of my argument was strident.  I didn't
mean it to be.  I certainly respect your views as a very
knowledgeable person and I have learned a lot from reading
your postings to the newsgroup.  But I was concerned that you
might be scaring Mike more than is warranted and I wanted to
give him a strongly reassuring view of his situation.

Mike,

My advice to you is still:

Be cool.  Enjoy life.  Don't let this upset you.  Odds are
very good that you're okay.

   Alan
Alan Meyer - 25 Oct 2005 22:02 GMT
> I had a gleason of 6 and a PSA of 6. I year ago I had 28 IMRT treatments
> and seeds. After 6 months PSA was .15, after 9 months .2 and now after
> 12 months .3. It does not seem to be going in the right direction. My
> urologists does not appear to be concerned. Is this progression normal?

My understanding is that this result is not yet identifiable
as a problem.  So far, I agree with your urologist.  What you
are seeing is indeed normal.

Seed implants are known to frequently cause PSA bounce for
up to three years.  During that period, the PSA can rise
and fall.  The reason generally given for this is that
radiation does not kill all of the prostate tissue outright.
It damages it and makes it difficult for the cells to divide
and replicate - which is required for cancer to progress.
In the meantime, you still have a prostate and, for most
men, you still produce some PSA.

Some men experience PSA bounce for even more than 3 years.

For unknown reasons, men who have brachytherapy apparently
have a much higher incidence of PSA bounce than men who have
IMRT alone.  But it is NOT evidence of treatment failure.

For your next test, abstain from sex, serious exercise,
bike riding, and anything else that could stress the prostate
for at least 3 days before the test.  I'm hoping you'll see
the PSA stay the same or go down.

My own PSA has bounced around pretty wildly after EBRT and
HDR brachytherapy - with a high of 1.8 and a low of .5, with
.6 as my last reading.  I and my doctors (at a National
Cancer Institute clinical trial) were alarmed by the 1.8,
but when they saw the next one was .5, they decided there
really is no evidence of disease progression.  They have
seen some PSA readings in the trial that were even higher
than mine that came down again.

My first PSA coming out of treatment, after the Lupron wore
off, was .8.  Then IIRC: .6, .9, .8, 1.8, .5, .6.
Personally, I'd be thrilled to have a PSA as low as yours.

I know you're sweating about this one.  I don't blame you.
But so far, I think your doctor is right and the chances
are that you have NOT failed treatment.  For comparison,
one guy on this group who did fail radiation treatment had
a PSA after treatment of 3.something, then went to 12, then
to 24.  He's now on hormone therapy.

In your case I think it would be a big mistake to go on
hormone therapy yet.  First off, you probably don't need it.
Secondly, if you do have recurrent cancer (unlikely) you
still don't need it yet.  And thirdly, it will lower your
PSA to undetectable, making further evaluations of the
radiation treatment impossible - PSA will no longer be a
useful measure of where you are.

One of the advantages touted for RP over RT is that the
surgery patients have a more reliable measure of whether
their treatment succeeded or failed.  For some people this
is essential.  They can't stand the uncertainty.  But those
of us that chose RT have to just be prepared to deal with
this uncertainty and not let it overwhelm us.

Stay cool.  I think you're most likely to be okay.

   Alan
Steve Kramer - 25 Oct 2005 22:46 GMT
It might be that your PSA is doubling every 6 months.  Your next one will
tell the tale.  As with several of us, your "proof" is just on the cusp and
your doc is suggesting you wait for another PSA to see if if levels off.
Unless you can shut it out, I am afraid you're in for three months of
hand-wringing.

Signature

PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 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 .08
non Illegitimi carborundum

> I had a gleason of 6 and a PSA of 6. I year ago I had 28 IMRT treatments
> and seeds. After 6 months PSA was .15, after 9 months .2 and now after
> 12 months .3. It does not seem to be going in the right direction. My
> urologists does not appear to be concerned. Is this progression normal?
>
> mike
 
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.