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 / November 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Could use some advice

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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

 
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.