Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2005
Could use some advice
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Dick Smith - 13 Nov 2005 03:52 GMT Hello, Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of 74. I know he would have wanted me to avoid his fate with it. I want to do just that.
I was tested last year at the age of 37 with a PSA of 0.8 and a non-remarkable DRE. Next week I'll be getting my annual PSA at the age of 38. Now my question is, what number should I expect? What if it's 1.0? Does that indicate trouble? Perhaps that means trouble within the next several years.
I know I shouldn't worry but after seeing what this damn thing did to my dad, it's hard not to be worried. I'm not sure what is the normal rise in PSA from one year to the next, and I don't trust any advice from my GP.
I'd appreciate any advice....
MH - 13 Nov 2005 04:17 GMT Hi, Dick.... At your age, you should *expect* your PSA to remain fairly constant. Oh, it might fluctuate by a couple of tenths... but otherwise it will probably stay the same. If you begin to notice regular cilimbs in the PSA, it will be important to note the velocity at which the PSA mounts... PSA velocity can indicate an aggressive cancer. Basically, though, your odds of PCa are increased because your dad had PCa. But that doesn't mean you *will* develop PCa. And with early monitoring by PSA, if you should see anything beginning to develop, you will have caught it early... It's great that you are keeping yourself checked. I'm sure your father would be proud to know that you are profiting from his experience in a positive way. But, at the same time, don't live your life with PCa hovering over your head. You *may* never get it! And you could be run over by a bus tomorrow.... just as I. So.... monitor.... and keep copies of your own PSA results... but don't obsess over it to the point that it prevents you from enjoying each day!
Kind regards! MikeH
> Hello, > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'd appreciate any advice.... Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 15:59 GMT >>And with early monitoring by PSA, if you should see anything beginning to develop, you will have caught it early...
Yes, I'm hoping that with good information I've attained here and by reading, I'll have a good chance of catching it early.
Thanks for the help!
I. P. Freely - 13 Nov 2005 06:35 GMT Buy a good PCa book (e.g., Walsh, Scardino, Dummies/Lange) and read the first half or so. It'll decrease your worries by educating you, keep you way ahead of most GPs, and let you know when it's time to see a specialist.
I.P.
"Dick Smith" >
> I'd appreciate any advice.... Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 16:01 GMT I have Walsh's book, and have read the first half. But as I've posted here in the past there were some interesting statements Walsh wrote in his book. Here is one message I wrote in the past:
Dr Walsh mentions in his book on page 114 about a study at Johns Hopkins led by urologist H Carter. In this study he says that "fifteen years before cancer was dx, all of the men who turned out to have aggressive prostate tumors had levels of free PSA that were lower than 15 percent. Men with slower growing non aggressive tumors all had free PSA levels greater than 15 percent."
Dr Walsh goes on and states that this landmark study suggest that percent free PSA may be an excellent predictor of aggressive tumors that will need to be treated.
Now, my question: I'm curious why this study is not mentioned more frequently? What is your opinion of this study and the use of free PSA?
Walsh states that if the free PSA is less than 15 percent, it's more likely that all of that PSA is coming from cancer, that the cancer is significant in size and will prove aggressive.
Frankly, I'm shocked why urologist do not recommend a free PSA testing to detect aggressive tumors.
Buttercup's Dad - 15 Nov 2005 16:27 GMT You live in a managed care healthcare world. Those "free" PSA tests cost $$$, and that cuts in to insurance company profits.
> I have Walsh's book, and have read the first half. But as I've posted > here in the past there were some interesting statements Walsh wrote in [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Frankly, I'm shocked why urologist do not recommend a free PSA testing > to detect aggressive tumors. Steve Jordan - 15 Nov 2005 16:41 GMT On November 15, Buttercup's Dad replied to Dick Smith:
> You live in a managed care healthcare world. Those "free" PSA tests cost > $$$, and that cuts in to insurance company profits. Or, OTOH,
"It is mistaken to attribute to malice things that can be satisfactorily explained by incompetence." -- Napoleon Bonaparte
Regards,
Steve J
GregL - 13 Nov 2005 06:49 GMT Hi
I started getting my PSA checked aged 38 and then every year after for the same reason.
The first reading was about 4.5 and stayed that way for around five years when it went to 8.0.
Biopsy showed 4 of the 6 samples with cancer.
My doctor now says they would have operated at 4.5 knowing what they know now.
Had RP in 1995 and last PSA was still undectectable.
Cheers and good luck.
greg
> Hello, > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'd appreciate any advice.... Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 16:03 GMT Greg how did it go to 8? Within one year or over several years?
>>Had RP in 1995 and last PSA was still undectectable Great to hear that!
Leonard Evens - 13 Nov 2005 14:35 GMT > Hello, > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'd appreciate any advice.... The others have pretty much covered it. Let me just add that PSA can vary for several reasons. There is some experimental error in the measurement, and at one point my urologist told me it could be as much as 0.5 ng/ml. But that was a few years ago, and it may be out of date. Also, prostatitis is a more likely explanation for a rise in PSA in a man your age than prostate cancer is. If your PSA does start to go up, your doctor will proabably want to retest you, and may decide even to order a biopsy. Decisions in such matters need advice from an expert, so you should make sure you have confidence in your doctor and let him guide you in the matter. Meanwhile try not to worry and go about your life. Even aggressive prostate cancer tends to grow slowly, and you will have plenty of time to find out what is going on and decide what to do next. In addition, in the highly unlikely event that you do get prostate cancer at a relatively young age, in the hands of an expert therapist, there is an excellent chance of a cure without serious side effects.
As a side note, let me add that sometimes I wish that my prostate cancer had been diagnosed ten years earlier---it was diagnosed at age 67. Then my chances of avoiding impotence would have been much higher. As it turned out, I lucked out in that matter, and erections more or less returned after 18 months, but it could have easily gone the other way.
Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 16:04 GMT >>Even aggressive prostate cancer tends to grow slowly, and you will have plenty of time to find out what is going on and decide what to do next.
But doesn't aggressive prostate cancer have a tendency to grow without a proportional increase in the PSA?
Steve Jordan - 13 Nov 2005 16:55 GMT > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of > 74. I know he would have wanted me to avoid his fate with it. I want to > do just that. And tracking PSA will help to do just that.
> I was tested last year at the age of 37 with a PSA of 0.8 and a > non-remarkable DRE. Next week I'll be getting my annual PSA at the age > of 38. Now my question is, what number should I expect? What if it's > 1.0? Does that indicate trouble? Perhaps that means trouble within the > next several years. It is generally accepted that a PSA test result of >2.5 ng/mL requires further investigation. But it is necessary to understand that a PSA test result that is "high" is not necessarily diagnostic of PCa. In fact, I have seen an assessment that PSA is diagnostic of PCa in only 43% of the cases, and that this figure is the result of pathological examinations of prostate glands removed in surgery. Source: Stephen B. Strum, MD, on P2P writing about a more reliable test, uPM3.
A "high" PSA test result could quite likely be the result of BPH (benign prostatic hyperplasia; it just grew), prostatitis, infection, ejaculation within 24-48 hours prior to the blood draw, bike riding, a DRE, anything that stresses the gland.
So: a "high" PSA is a headsup, nothing more. Unless, of course, it's huge.
That's why the timing of the blood draw is critical. And why, if the result is abnormally high, a course of an antibiotic such as Cipro followed by another test is often indicated.
As I understand it, PSA can naturally rise with age, but it's a very slow process.
I recommend reference to the website of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute at: http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html The site includes much useful information, is thorough, objective and authoritative.
Search for "PSA doubling time" and "PSA velocity."
Regards,
Steve J
"What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget 'what the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!" --Lazarus Long
Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 16:08 GMT Yes, I'm using the 2.5 cutoff too, I'm following Dr Catalona's advice he gave here:
Here is what I recommend for prostate cancer screening: annual PSA and digital rectal examination beginning at age 40, or earlier in men with a family history of early age-at-onset prostate cancer (PSA levels should be 0.6 to 0.7 ng/ml in men in their 40s and 50s without prostate disease); prospectively monitoring PSA velocity; biopsies for men with a suspicious digital rectal examination, PSA higher than 2.5 ng/ml, or a PSA velocity higher than 0.75 ng/ml per year, using 12 core biopsy protocols under local prostate anesthesia; considering measuring androgen levels in interpreting PSA results; and using percent free PSA, percent complexed PSA, PSA density, and PSA velocity measurements todetermine the need for repeat biopsies.
The most effective and acceptable treatments eradicate the tumor at a very early stage before it has a chance to spread. Every man hopes to be cured with primary treatment without additional therapy. No one wants to hear about long-term hormonal therapy, chemotherapy, or harsh experimental treatments. The risk of unnecessary treatment is low when good clinical judgment is exercised.
Ron B - 17 Nov 2005 21:36 GMT As a patient who has had his surgery done by Dr. Catalona...
I, too, feel
"Yes, I'm using the 2.5 cutoff too, I'm following Dr Catalona's advice he gave here:"
As they say...'you dance with the girl you came with'...or something like that...
I have to trust in him. I just HAVE to...emotionally...
My best wishes to all,
Ron B.
Chicago
Alan Meyer - 14 Nov 2005 05:41 GMT > Hello, > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of > 74. I know he would have wanted me to avoid his fate with it. I want to > do just that. If he died at age 74, we might guess that his cancer got out of control (metastasized) sometime in his late 60's. If your future is like his past, you've probaby got 25 years before anything significant would show up. Hopefully, by then, new detection and treatment methods will make prostate cancer an easily detectable and treatable problem - perhaps not requiring the slash and burn techniques used today.
> I was tested last year at the age of 37 with a PSA of 0.8 and a > non-remarkable DRE. Next week I'll be getting my annual PSA at the age > of 38. Now my question is, what number should I expect? What if it's > 1.0? Does that indicate trouble? Perhaps that means trouble within the > next several years. As others have said, there is variation due to non-cancer causes. My oncologist claimed that PSA can vary up to 30% day to day, though that much variation isn't common.
> I know I shouldn't worry but after seeing what this damn thing did to > my dad, it's hard not to be worried. I'm not sure what is the normal > rise in PSA from one year to the next, and I don't trust any advice > from my GP. Unless your GP knows more than mine did, you're right not to trust completely him on this. Older GPs were all trained before the PSA era. Younger ones probably heard about PSA in med school, but were taught that anything below 4.0 is perfectly normal - which isn't necessarily true.
My impression of most doctors is that they get pretty good at diagnosing and treating the illnesses they frequently encounter - sore throats, flu, etc., but it takes one who really stays on top of things to be able to diagnose the more unusual illnesses.
> I'd appreciate any advice.... My non-physician's, non-expert, take-it-for-what-you-paid-for-it advice is, continue getting tested each year. If you see a noticeable increase in PSA, and I'm not sure what would count as noticeable, ask for a more frequent test schedule of every 6 months. If the trend continues up, ask your GP to refer you to a specialist.
My understanding is that PSA does increase with age - perhaps due to gradual enlargement of the prostate. That's normal and expected and shouldn't alarm you. It's if you see something going up faster than in the past, or getting above some cut off point, that you need to see a specialist. They used to say the cut-off was 4.0, but others are now saying 2.5.
Alan
Dick Smith - 15 Nov 2005 16:14 GMT >>If he died at age 74, we might guess that his cancer got out of control (metastasized) sometime in his late 60's. If your future is like his past, you've probaby got 25 years before anything significant would show up.
Alan, but I'm not sure I've seen any studies that indicate PCa shows up at around the same age in succeeding generations who get it.
>>My impression of most doctors is that they get pretty good at diagnosing and treating the illnesses they frequently encounter - sore throats, flu, etc., but it takes one who really stays on top of things to be able to diagnose the more unusual illnesses.
Agree.
>>They used to say the cut-off was 4.0, but others are now saying 2.5 It will be the speed of the increase that concerns me the most. I just have a feeling I'm going to get this damn thing at some point in time.
Alan Meyer - 18 Nov 2005 02:06 GMT > ... I just have a feeling I'm going to get this damn > thing at some point in time. It might happen. It might not. But you've educated yourself and know whatever there is to know about how to protect yourself by early detection. Other than leading a healthy lifestyle, that's about all you can do.
Now it's time to stop worrying about it and get on with the real business of living - which is not worrying about how our lives will end, but instead thinking up good ways to spend the time we've got. That's always our main task, and one that's even more important (and a heckuva lot more fun) than figuring out how to protect ourselves from cancer.
Good luck.
Alan
I. P. Freely - 18 Nov 2005 02:37 GMT >> ... I just have a feeling I'm going to get this damn >> thing at some point in time. Your point? We're also going to have cardiovasular disease, dementia, any of several other cancers, suicidal depression, disembowelment at the hands of a mugger, and/or general all-around death, too, if and when we live long enough. So we eat right, exercise, take a three-cent MMMV pill daily, sleep eight hours most nights, pack heat under some circumstances, replace sky-diving with dirt bike racing, maybe take a few well-researched supplements, read enough about our biggest familial threats to elevate our defenses against and awareness of them, support all-out war on organized terrorism, wear seat belts, make DAMNED certain our military is the most powerful in the world and the administration is willing to use it to defend us, consult doctors when something unexplained is not quite right for a few days or bad for one, and move out of the city . . . except when there's something else more fun to do, which trumps all that other stuff in the short term.
I.P.
Alan Meyer - 18 Nov 2005 05:09 GMT > ... So we eat right, exercise, take a three-cent MMMV pill daily, sleep > eight hours most nights, pack heat under some circumstances, ... Uh oh. I'm going to real careful about what I say about your postings from now on.
Alan
JerryW - 18 Nov 2005 19:18 GMT > pack heat under some circumstances... Yikes!
I.P. "packing heat" and roaming around "Freely" somewhere in these United States. And we thought getting PCa was scary.
JerryW
dale.j. - 15 Nov 2005 00:40 GMT > Hello, > Just a quick background. Father died of very aggressive PCa at age of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I'd appreciate any advice.... You are well informed to get regular PSA's. To be worried will keep you vigilant. My father also had Pca and I followed. I cannot give you any advice to your question however.
Dalej.
 Signature Email: dalej2@mac.com
|
|
|