 |
 | 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 / December 2007What now?
I applied for life insurance about a month ago. I was declined because of my blood work results. My PSA was at 3.4 and my Free PSA was at 15% I last had a physical exam Oct 11th 2005 that included a DRE. I scheduled a visit to one of the top Urologists in the area. I am obviously freaking out and am hoping that what is driving these levels is an infection ect.... any guidance or direction sure would be appreciated..... >I applied for life insurance about a month ago. I was declined > because of my blood work results. My PSA was at 3.4 and my Free PSA [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > levels is an infection ect.... any guidance or direction sure would be > appreciated..... What country are you in and how old? I never heard of such a thing before? They usually check your BP, weight, and smoker or not. Never heard of a blood test for life insurance before? And no diagnosis either? Are you leaving something out?  SignatureJK Sinrod http://www.sinrodstudios.com http://myconeyislandmemories.com >> I applied for life insurance about a month ago. I was declined >> because of my blood work results. My PSA was at 3.4 and my Free PSA [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > heard of a blood test for life insurance before? And no diagnosis > either? Are you leaving something out? And in some countries life insurers - voluntarily or forced by law - refrain from blood tests. Preliminary results of the NCI's PLCO trial suggest that out of 8% of men having PSA > 4 only 1.4% tested positive for PCa. Preliminary results of the ERSPC study show that out of the 20% of men having PSA > 3 only 4.7% tested positive for PCa. In other words at least 75% appear to be false positives. Though a biopsy generally isn't that painful I doubt that you would suffer one just to obtain life insurance. As a matter of fact whole life insurance (as distinguished from term insurance) is a silly idea for almost all people except insurance salesmen. > >> I applied for life insurance about a month ago. I was declined > >> because of my blood work results. My PSA was at 3.4 and my Free PSA [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > matter of fact whole life insurance (as distinguished from term > insurance) is a silly idea for almost all people except insurance salesmen. Im in the USA. I am 49 and will be 50 in July. Physical Exams including blood work are generally done for face amounts in excess of $500,000.00. In larger policies, full blown physicals including stress tests are done. Whole Life policies make sense when used in complex estate planning. I was going to purchase mine was because I have 4 young children and I wanted to make sure that if I got killed in an accident going home (as an example) that college would be taken care of for my children and my wife would have a cushion financially PSA of 3.4 at age 49 isn't really very high, but when coupled with a free PSA of 15%, it COULD mean there's a problem. Do you know your 2005 PSA? If the 2005 PSA was significantly lower than 3.4, then there is some more reason for concern. I had PSA of 3.8 and similar free PSA score when I was diagnosed at 54. So by all means, get it checked out. Probably, the urologist will recommend a needle biopsy, which is uncomfortable (get medication!) but not a major medical procedure by any means. The good news is that, if it turns out to be prostate cancer you are catching it early, and you will have an excellent chance of complete cure. Applying for the life ins may turn out to be the best thing that's happened. Good luck! Fred > Im in the USA. I am 49 and will be 50 in July. Physical Exams > including blood work are generally done for face amounts in excess of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in an accident going home (as an example) that college would be taken > care of for my children and my wife would have a cushion financially I suspect that whole life almost never makes sense for a 50-year-old. I would consider term life insurance and a comprehensive retirement plan. It's probably too late to make your wife comfortable if you're not going to be around for the next 15 years. Drive safely. DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial planner or counselor. Anything I say here should be confirmed by a professional. :-) > I suspect that whole life almost never makes sense for a 50-year-old. I > would consider term life insurance and a comprehensive retirement plan. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > DISCLAIMER: I am not a financial planner or counselor. Anything I say here > should be confirmed by a professional. :-) Steve beat me to the same advice, with one change: I'd skip the "I suspect that". After extensive research, calculations, and plots, I found at 53 in 1996 that guaranteed renewable level term life insurance came out way, *way*, *WAY* ahead of whole life in the short and long terms, so far ahead that I cancelled the whole life I had held for many years. Term provides two or three times the coverage of whole at a small fraction of the cost for at least the next few decades, and its cost has been dropping steadily for over a decade. And when renewal time comes at age 73 in 2016, they can't charge me an extra nickel for my health even if I'm on my death bed. My financial planner (and, at that time, whole life insurance source) agreed with me under one condition: that we invest the premium saved. In fact, the global financial planning company he worked for used to advise term but switched to whole only because so few clients had the discipline to invest the difference. As we invested a third of our gross income already, he said term was a no-brainer for us even though it meant walking away from the money we had paid into whole life, that whole life is beneficial to only two people: first and foremost the insurance salesman, plus maybe some benefit to clients who can not make themselves save any money any other way than forced whole life premiums. Choose what you wish, but just as with PC treatment, make sure it's YOUR choice, based on research and your situation, and not your source's choice, based on HIS interests. DISCLAIMER: Also not a financial planner or counselor. Anything I say here should be confirmed by a professional ... one who neither sells insurance nor sleeps with anyone who does. I.P. Steve and I.P., I think you are missing his statement about whole life making sense in complex estate planning. Although I am definitely NOT a fan of whole life insurance, it really can make sense if the estate is large and other options have been exhausted or are otherwise not available. Although I am not now a financial planner, I was one (a.k.a. Registered Representative for securities sales and insurance sales) in a previous life. I found that I wasn't comfortable selling the products that produced the highest commissions - like whole life and annuities. I, too, suspect that there are other factors he didn't mention that are causing him difficulty in getting life insurance. But, whatever factors are causing him difficulties in getting the whole life policy in place would probably cause problems in buying life insurance regardless of the type. Burney >> I suspect that whole life almost never makes sense for a 50-year-old. I >> would consider term life insurance and a comprehensive retirement plan. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >I.P. RP in 1995 (age 52) RT in 2000 ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07 burney dot huff at mindspring dot com > wrote: > Steve beat me to the same advice, with one change: I'd skip the "I suspect > that". After extensive research, calculations, and plots, I ... I.P. (and anyone else who may wish to follow my folly), I suspected that Blazo Boy _IS_ a professional. I came to that conclusion when I read his statement about whole life and could not resist pulling his chain. He confirmed it when he replied by personal e-mail. And, he's a nice guy. Sorry for stirring the pot again. Sometimes, I just can't help myself. > Sorry for stirring the pot again. I don't consider offering advice, even unsolicited, to be pot-stirring, so no apology necessary IMO. The recipient -- and all bystanders -- have many options, including at least researching it further, acting on it, ignoring it, responding to it, PLONKing its source, offering a rational alternative, and/or debating it, so everyone should break even at worst, benefit in some way from it at best. Informed choices usually beat uninformed ones, and information is easy to discard, especially on a computer. I.P. Hi Blazo Boy, From this article in Malecare if I'm reading it right your probability of having prostate cancer based upon your free psa would put you at about 25%. You might want to contact a urologist if you haven't yet and have him do a work up. My psa was higher at 6.7 and my free psa was 13%. My biopsy came back at (3+4)7. http://www.malecare.com/prostate-cancer_77.htm PSA & Prostate Cancer Good Luck, Ron S. -- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/group/alt.support.cancer.prostate/ More information at http://www.talkaboutsupport.com/faq.html > Im in the USA. I am 49 and will be 50 in July. Physical Exams > including blood work are generally done for face amounts in excess of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in an accident going home (as an example) that college would be taken > care of for my children and my wife would have a cushion financially Thanks for the update... I never went through all that when it was my turn to protect the kids. I also am a former FP and Stockbroker like another poster. I had a mix of whole and term life, and very glad I bought it when I was much younger. Cash values have become a great forced savings for us. Now in our later 50's and the kids older we dropped all the term policies. As for your prostate... you still have a long way to go before you need to worry about checking out. Worst case is a little surgery may be needed, and you'll live to get hit by a truck at 85. Best case is we'll never hear from you again because it was nothing at all. 5 1/2 year PCa surgery survivor here at 58 years old... living a fairly normal life SignatureJK Sinrod http://www.sinrodstudios.com http://myconeyislandmemories.com > > Im in the USA. I am 49 and will be 50 in July. Physical Exams > > including blood work are generally done for face amounts in excess of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > -- > JK Sinrodhttp://www.sinrodstudios.comhttp://myconeyislandmemories.com THanks for ALL of the support and helpful information. I had a trip to the urologist on Thursday. Dr. did a DRE and confirmed that I have prostatitis. I'll be on bacterium for the next 4 weeks and then retest the PSA in early February. My guess is that its the infection that is driving my PSA and I'm operating under the assumption that everything is basically normal until such time as my PSA comes back and indications something is still a problem. This "scare" has hammered home to me the importance of annual check ups for EVERYTHING. I had become lax in my attitude about getting a physical. I guess I had allowed myself to fall into that trap of thinking that I am immune and nothing could possibly be wrong because I felt fine. Well, I sure don't have to tell you guys, that everything is fine until its not fine and if you play the ignore the doctor game, you may find yourself in such trouble that basically nothing can be done for you. Thanks to C_Palmer and Steve... You guys have a lot on your plates and took time to give solid advice. I"ll let you know what happens after I get my blood work done in Feb. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all > This "scare" has hammered home to me the importance of annual check > ups for EVERYTHING. I had become lax in my attitude about getting a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doctor game, you may find yourself in such trouble that basically > nothing can be done for you. I advise a further step: after getting each annual checkup, double-check your checkup. Do not assume that no call from your doctor means everything is OK. Obtain a copy of YOUR lab results, scan it, determine where each parameter's result fits in relation to its acceptable/normal range (that's all printed on the results page), and make sure your doctor discusses the implications of each measurement that's out of normal range or near its high or low limit. For much more information, Google something like <blood urine lab test results> and pick a site you like. Why? Because too many doctors are too busy, too uninformed, too blase, or simply too incompetent to warrant our blind trust on something so simple to validate. I failed to notice that my VA doctor had ignored my rapidly climbing PSA for three years, letting it climb to a level and rate of increase that my odds of being killed by it increased tenfold. That's his damned job, he failed at it, and odds are that he effectively killed me. Now, since I'm operating under the assumption that he didn't, that I'll skate around my statistics and die later of something else, I'm already researching my next perceived threat: rising blood glucose, aka pre-diabetes. Three doctors have already told me to ignore it, but a quick scan of a dozen hospital and medical websites and several books tells me those doctors are flat wrong. 'Scuse me; I got some more reading to do. I.P. > Three doctors have already told me to ignore it, but a > quick scan of a dozen hospital and medical websites and several books > tells me those doctors are flat wrong. And they may be (or IP may be a hypochondriac). As Blazo's doc may be wrong if Blazo's suggestion that his doc confirmed prostatitis on a DRE is correct. His doc is more likely to have said: the prostate feels OK, so the reason for the higher PSA could be prostatitis. Annual checkups result in overdiagnosis and overtreatment. "We found that somewhere between 20% and 40% of prostate cancers are over-diagnosed," said Etzioni." http://tinyurl.com/ys9dcu "The consequences of overdiagnosis for the individual patient may be formidable, and for those who choose to discuss the option of screening with their health care provider, the important possibility of overdiagnosis should not be underestimated or overlooked". J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(13):981-990, 958-960 > Thanks to C_Palmer and Steve... You guys have a lot on your plates and > took time to give solid advice. I"ll let you know what happens after > I get my blood work done in Feb. Believe me, Rob. We are very happy not to issue you a fulltime membership to our group. > Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas to all Same to you an yours. 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 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > > Thanks to C_Palmer and Steve... You guys have a lot on your plates and > > took time to give solid advice. I"ll let you know what happens after [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 > Non Illegitimi Carborundum Ohhh such great free advice. Whole life is a suckers game with a few tiny exceptions. Although a registered rep (52, 7, 63), my game is investment banking so, don't take the insurance advice. Blazo-Boy - When you get the follow up PSA, make sure they give you lots of Cipro the month before. This will kill any infection. My case was much like yours - lowish PSA, swift rise, 9% Free, nothing on DRE. Best of luck to you. 44 yo PSA:2.0 (10/04), 2.6 (10/05), 3.3 (10/06), 3.3 w 9% free (1/07), 4.1 (4/07) normal DREs Biopsy 6/15/07 Gleason 6 (3+3), 6/12 cores, one core 100% Right APEX), T1c (Clinical) RP 10/2/07 (G6)T2c, N0M0 > > "Blazo_Boy" <dreamer...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > T1c (Clinical) > RP 10/2/07 (G6)T2c, N0M0 I cant take Cipro. I a very nasty reaction to it about a year ago. I am on Bactrium and have been for about a week. Ill get the blood work rechecked in late Jan or early Feb. As I said, there is NO QUESTION that I have an infection. What we dont know yet, is the infection what is causing the PSA level to be where it is? Hopefully, I will see a significant drop in the PSA when it is rechecked..... >I applied for life insurance about a month ago. I was declined > because of my blood work results. My PSA was at 3.4 and my Free PSA [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > levels is an infection ect.... any guidance or direction sure would be > appreciated..... Calm down, Blazo. A single reading of 3.4 is hardly notable. The old standard was 4.0 (depending on age). Unless it is four times higher than the one you might have had in 2005. And 15% fPSA is in the same category. 25% is great and 10% sucks. 15% is in the gray area. Assuming life insurance is no longer you major consideration, you will probably want to get another PSA in three months and see what it does. I would also, if I were you, consider applying for life insurance elsewhere. Turning you down for a 3.4 and 15% is patently unfair -- unless you're 22. DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and anything I or anyone else here says should be backed up by a professional consultation with your doctor, preferably at this point a urologist. 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 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum |
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.