 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / March 2007PSA
Looking for some thoughts. Had a biopsy coming up on three weeks ago and still no answers but psa went from 4.5 in october to 7.9 in january, 2 yrs ago it was less than 2.0. I know i need to wait for results but everything urological here in calgary is as slow as molasses,eg.been waiting for a video urodynamic since august and still not on the list. I'm not looking for diagnosis here just what others have run across with this kind of number change. Thanks > Looking for some thoughts. > Had a biopsy coming up on three weeks ago and still no answers but psa [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with this kind of number change. > Thanks My ignorant layman's guess is a prostate infection; if your PSA rose 3.4 points in three months, I'd expect your pants to catch fire. But, man, biopsy results should take days, not weeks. Have you called your urologist, or are you waiting for him to call you? I.P. > Looking for some thoughts. > Had a biopsy coming up on three weeks ago and still no answers but psa [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not looking for diagnosis here just what others have run across > with this kind of number change. Doug, That is an alarming rate of acceleration. Unfortunately, that's the best anyone here can come up with what you have provided. What is your age? Have you an symptoms? Is your prostate enlarged? What were the results of the DRE? And, if you were to answer all those questions, the best anyone here could say is, "you have to wait for the biopsy results." Gotta love that national health care system. About October 15, 2000, I called the doctor's office and said I wanted to come in for my annual PSA test. My appointment was October 17, 2000. By November 1, I was getting a biopsy. On November 3, I was sitting in the doctor's office 'consulting'. December 15, I was having my prostate removed. But, it cost me $117 dollars. I understand yours, if you need treatment, will be free. Based on your numbers, I'm inclined to grant you tentative membership to our club. Sorry. I will pray that you'll be booted out when you get your results back. Please let us know.  SignaturePSA 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, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05 Non Illegitimi Carborundum Hello: The results of my biopsy were back inside of one week last July. Three weeks is far too long. I'd strongly suggest you contact your urologist and find out what the delay is all about. And for your sake, I hope it's not prostate cancer. --charlie On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, dougbattag...@yahoo.ca wrote: > Looking for some thoughts. > Had a biopsy coming up on three weeks ago and still no answers but psa [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with this kind of number change. > Thanks On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, dougbattag...@yahoo.ca wrote: > Looking for some thoughts. > Had a biopsy coming up on three weeks ago and still no answers but psa [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > with this kind of number change. > Thanks i have an appointment mar 6,dre was 2+3,had a kidney infection in october and ultrasounds in january but they didnt take measurements,hard time passing but also have scaring of external sphincter (thats the reason for the video urodynamic,to determine best fix for that).I did have to make my own appointment after the second psa as the urologist wasn't calling ,even after calls and faxes from family doc.will post results of appointment next week thanks On Mar 2, 8:40 am, dougbattag...@yahoo.ca wrote: > On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, dougbattag...@yahoo.ca wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > family doc.will post results of appointment next week > thanks Well ,went and saw the urologist yesterday,not the best day of the week by far. gleason is 6 and surgery booked for end of month.Because of previous turp can not do cryo or pellets and he doesn't want to do radiation as that will rule out any surgery down the road.He is also concerned about restricting my urine flow even more with radiation treatment.So i guess its surgery now then radiation later if needed.I have to see my family doctor tomorrow morning as there ended up being lots of questions i forgot to ask even after 2.5 hrs of talking,he bumped my appointment to the last one of the day. I'll remember to get the gleason breakdown then. I had one sample at 60% ,three at 20%, one at 10%, and one at 5%. > Well ,went and saw the urologist yesterday,not the best day of the > week by far. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > gleason breakdown then. > I had one sample at 60% ,three at 20%, one at 10%, and one at 5%. Sorry to hear that, Doug......but if it were me, I would be asking either the family doctor or the urologist for a referral to an oncologist. I am in Ontario and it sure didn't take long to see one. The urologist booked it for us. I don't know your age, but my husband was almost 70 and the urologist told him that radiation was probably the wiser choice at that age. Heather > I don't know your age, but my husband was almost 70 and the urologist > told him that radiation was probably the wiser choice at that age. That's changing. An article today addressed a big study showing that even octogenarians benefit from RRP [presuming no known contraindications besides age). I.P. On March 7, Mike Freely wrote: Quoting Heather: >> I don't know your age, but my husband was almost 70 and the urologist >> told him that radiation was probably the wiser choice at that age. Mike blurted: > That's changing. An article today addressed a big study showing that > even octogenarians benefit from RRP [presuming no known > contraindications besides age). What article is that? What is the source? Where can we read the original? As usual, Mike won't document his statements, which makes them worthless. Regards, Steve J "His simple word is worthless; and to embellish it with his oath would merely make it picturesque, not valuable." --Mark Twain On Mar 7, 6:17 pm, dougbattag...@yahoo.ca wrote: Hello again, Doug: Sorry to learn of your cancer, but there is hope, of course. You mentioned getting the Gleason breakdown; do you happen to know the tumor's clinical stage? That would be something like a T1c ot T2b, some code like that. Also, if you know which cores had which percentages, that helps you and the docs understand the likeliest location and size of the tumor. I think it's a good idea to speak with a radiation oncologist. It just seems to me that if radiation is ruled out becuase of your TURP, then a rad onc would agree with that. I did speak to a rad onc -- actually at the insistence of my urologist -- but ultimately decided to have a laparoscopic prostatectomy anyway. If either surgery or radiation do not work, it's most likely beacuse the cancer has spread. I'd like to know that sooner rather than later, and it seems to me that surgery is the route that allows one to learn that as soon as possible. That was just my choice, of course. I hope it all turns out well for you. Please let us know how it turns out. All the best, charlie > Well ,went and saw the urologist yesterday,not the best day of the > week by far. > gleason is 6 and surgery booked for end of month. Not a bad day, Doug. Your 7.9 could be better, but a Gleason 6 aint bad at all. What about Stage? Regardless of Stage, the 20%, 10% and 5% are good numbers. Hopefully that 60% is right up the middle of one node. Surgery is a good choice in most cases, I believe, but you may still want to talk to a non-surgeon about it. Good luck and please let us know when the date is. SignaturePSA 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, 5/05, 10/05, 2/06, 6/06 PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > <dougbattag...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > PSA <0.04, <0.05 > Non Illegitimi Carborundum The gleason was 3+3 with the left base and right base being high grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (hgpin) to 20 % of the sample.Left apex was 5% at 3+3 and left middle was prostatic adenocarcinoma at 3+3 at 60%. There is also a pasd of 0.3 ,what ever that is.The right middle and right apex have acute and chronic inflamation. One other thing that is wierd to me is a previous gland measurement was 45 cc and this new measurement is now 22cc which the doc said will make it difficult to do the procedure,there is only one person in the city that does laproscopic and he is backed up till the end of the summer and no davincies in this part of the country so the are going to have to cut it out.I had the test done on Feb 13 and it didn't get reported till the 27 of the month,so that is why I hadn't heard from the doc till Mar 6. On March 9, Doug wrote: (snip) > There is also a pasd of 0.3 ,what ever that is. It is a measure of tumour volume. It is calculated by dividing PSA by gland volume. "The amount of PSA per unit volume of the prostate gland; the quotient of PSA divided by gland volume; a reflection of tumor density within the prostate." --per the glossary of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute at: http://www.prostate-cancer.org/ Regards, Steve J > On March 9, Doug wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve J Thanks,Doug b On March 9, Doug wrote: Quoting my Words of Wisdom, in pertinent part: >> It is a measure of tumour volume. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> of PSA divided by gland volume; a reflection of tumor density within >> the prostate." --per the glossary of the Prostate Cancer Research Institute He replied: > Thanks,Doug b Um, er, I should have written tumour *density.* Argh. Regards, Steve J In the corner. > The gleason was 3+3 with the left base and right base being high grade > prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia (hgpin) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > reported till the 27 of the month,so that is why I hadn't heard from > the doc till Mar 6. I can see where you wouldn't want to wait until the end of Summer. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.