Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / October 2005
Psa reading
|
|
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
|
|
|