I'd say the bike riding might be equivalent to stomping on your prostate,
whereas even a mild massage could elevate PSA. And Levaquin is primarily for
prostate infection, which raises PSA. Hell, yes, that PSA reading is
suspect. Get back to us after your next PSA check . . . abstaining from sex,
bicycles, bull riding, etc.
I.P.
"Ed Kratz" >
> On the morning of the test, I rode a stationary exercise bike for an hour.
> I've heard conflicting opinions of the influence that might have. I've
> definitely avoided any and all exercise for the last three days, though I
> can't believe an exercise bike could make such a drastic difference.
Hello Ed,
Hang in there, get your tests done. Relax. Peddaling a bike will not
cure cancer. It helps your body......! and your mind.
Get the tests done, and do not overdue any exersize program thinking you can
offset a problem.
Find out about the reason for the PSA, up and down.
Bike riding may cause stress on the Prostate.
Talk to the Dr. about your exersize program and its effects on PSA.
YOur butt, and the seat, and the movement, and the prostate are all
involved.
Good wishes.....
John Loomis
> I've been getting great help from everyone on the group, and I appreciate
> it.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> 10/11/00 1.1
> 09/23/99 1.0
Ed Kratz - 01 Nov 2005 11:21 GMT
Thanks John.
We'll see what happens after the re-test and in my uro appointment on the
10th.
Ed
> Hello Ed,
> Hang in there, get your tests done. Relax. Peddaling a bike will not
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>> 10/11/00 1.1
>> 09/23/99 1.0
> I've been getting great help from everyone on the group, and I appreciate it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> 10/11/00 1.1
> 09/23/99 1.0
Alan Meyer - 01 Nov 2005 06:14 GMT
Oops.
Clicked Send by accident before I typed anything.
Alan
> I've been getting great help from everyone on the group, and I appreciate it.
>
> As one might imagine, I"m a bit nervous.
Fool that I am, I wasn't a bit nervous when told that my PSA was above
normal and that I needed a biopsy. I put it off for about 5 months. I
thought, "What, me? Cancer? Why anyone can see I'm as healthy as
can be!"
> I posted earlier than a few weeks ago my PSA was 5.4.
> In the last several weeks I've taken levaquin, and I'm getting the test re-done
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Just wondered if there was anything else I should ask my internist for tomorrow.
I suspect that your internist has done his job. He identified the
possibility of a problem and has setup further testing for you. The
urologist is going to be the guy that really knows what this is all about.
> Also, I've heard about PSA velocity being a dangerous sign.
>
> My PSA history is below:
> In the worst case, I'm wondering if I'm in more trouble because of the rapid jump.
This is a question for the Uro. My inexpert, layman's, take it for what you
paid for it guess is, the rapid rise may indicate something is happening
more quickly than happens to some other men. But the relatively low
PSA (below 10 is considered "low risk" unless the Gleason number is
high) still indicates that you've caught it early enough that, if you do have
cancer, the probability of a cure is high.
> On the morning of the test, I rode a stationary exercise bike for an hour. I've heard
> conflicting opinions of the influence that might have. I've definitely avoided any and
> all exercise for the last three days, though I can't believe an exercise bike could make
> such a drastic difference.
I'm pretty sure from my own experience that sex can raise the PSA by
2 points or more. I can't say for sure about bike riding, but I bet it has
some influence.
> As ever, any advice would be appreciated.
It seems like a great many of the men on this group have been
given antibiotics in order to find out if they have prostatitis. I've
had prostatitis and had antibiotics for it. They did zero good. Two
other men I've known who have had prostatitis were given
antibiotics and it did them zero good. I can't recall any man on
this newsgroup saying that his PSA went down after taking
antibiotics. And when I researched it on the web, I found very
little support for the theory that prostatitis is caused by any kind
of bacterial infection that is treatable by antibiotics. Doctors keep
prescribing antibiotics for prostatitis because they don't know what
else to do and seem to prefer offering a useless treatment rather
than none at all.
So, if the PSA does not go down, I wouldn't conclude for sure
that you have cancer and not prostatitis. You may still be okay.
Prostatitis can be painful (an orgasm can be like an explosion of
pain), but apparently it's not otherwise threatening to life or health.
When you get to the Uro, if he offers you a choice of having a biopsy
or waiting, unless your PSA has gone down, I recommend going
for the biopsy. I'd ask him for a full one with 12 cores or more. The
biopsy is a minor pain but, until something better comes along, it's
the best diagnostic tool we have.
If your PSA has gone down and you want to hold off on the biopsy,
I'd be sure to ask for another PSA test every three months or so. If
things are heading the wrong way, you want to find out before they
get very far. The key word in "watchful waiting" is "watchful", which
requires frequent PSA tests.
If it turns out you've got cancer, well, that's bad news. But it's
very likely _not_ a death sentence. You've caught it early and
treatment is very likely to succeed.
Best of luck.
Alan
Ed Kratz - 01 Nov 2005 11:20 GMT
Alan,
Thanks for the encouragement.
As I said, besides the re-test of the PSA, I have an appointment with a top
URO in the city November 10th, and I plan to keep that PSA up or down.
Thanks again,
Ed
>> I've been getting great help from everyone on the group, and I appreciate
>> it.
[quoted text clipped - 86 lines]
>
> Alan
Steve Jordan - 01 Nov 2005 17:51 GMT
On October 31, Alan Meyer responded to Ed, in pertinent part:
> When you get to the Uro, if he offers you a choice of having a biopsy
> or waiting, unless your PSA has gone down, I recommend going
> for the biopsy. I'd ask him for a full one with 12 cores or more. The
> biopsy is a minor pain but, until something better comes along, it's
> the best diagnostic tool we have.
There is newer test that I understand is 81% accurate in dx of PCa, as
opposed to 43% for PSA.
It's the uPM3 urine test offered by Bostwick Laboratories. It tests for a
marker that is expressed *only* by PCa cells.
More info can be found on the website of the Prostate Cancer Research
Institute at: http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html
The Bostwick site is at: http://www.bostwicklaboratories.com/default.htm
Might be worthwhile to look into it.
Regards,
Steve J
Ron B - 01 Nov 2005 19:53 GMT
Steve J wrote:
"There is a newer test that I understand is 81% accurate in dx of PCa,
as opposed to 43% for PSA.
It's the uPM3 urine test offered by Bostwick Laboratories. It tests for
a marker that is expressed *only* by PCa cells."
Very interesting Steve. Thanks for the info.
Ron B.
Chicago
Dick Smith - 01 Nov 2005 20:47 GMT
That is interesting. Is a f-PSA as accurate or less?
ron - 01 Nov 2005 21:16 GMT
Steve Jordan wrote in regards to the uPM3 test...snip...
> There is newer test that I understand is 81% accurate in dx of PCa, as
> opposed to 43% for PSA.
Hi Steve...I've seen descriptors such as sensitivity, specificity,
positive & negative predictive value and test efficiency used to
compare tests. Each of these measures is defined by a formula based
upon true / false positives and true / false negatives. How is
"accuracy" defined as you have used it?..Best wishes and good health,
Ron
Steve Jordan - 01 Nov 2005 21:50 GMT
On November 1, ron replied to me:
> Hi Steve...I've seen descriptors such as sensitivity, specificity,
> positive & negative predictive value and test efficiency used to
> compare tests. Each of these measures is defined by a formula based
> upon true / false positives and true / false negatives. How is
> "accuracy" defined as you have used it?..Best wishes and good health,
Strum wrote in a P2P posting that the accuracy was determined by what I
would consider a very practical test: pathological examination of the gland
post RP. I understand that that is the measure by which the 43% PSA figure
was determined, too.
Regards,
Steve J
PS: I disremember which post it was, but it was dated within the past 30
days -- I think.
Ed,
Well, I'm not a doctor, but you don't even sound like a candidate for a
biopsy, much less prostate cancer.
Sounds like the doctor has diagnosed prostatitis, and is treating it
effectively.
jimhoney
Ed Kratz wrote:
> I've been getting great help from everyone on the group, and I appreciate
> it.
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> 10/11/00 1.1
> 09/23/99 1.0
Ed Kratz - 01 Nov 2005 11:22 GMT
Jim,
Thanks for the comments.
I appreciate them.
Ed
> Ed,
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>> 10/11/00 1.1
>> 09/23/99 1.0