 |
 | 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 / January 2004So far, so good ...
Yesterday I got the results of my first post-op PSA test: 0.00. Larry Diagnosed age 59 PSA 22 Biopsy 8/12/2003 Gleason 4+3=7 (first opinion) Gleason 4+5=9 (second opinion) CAT scan negative Bone scan and skeletal survey negative Da Vinci Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy 10/13/2003, one nerve spared. Final path report, Gleason 4+5= 9/10 Seminal vesicles positive Lymph nodes negative PSA History: 01/09/2004 0.00 07/28/2003 22 12/14/2002 15.70 10/25/2000 4.51 09/26/1997 2.5 10/19/1993 1.3 01/16/1993 0.9 Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!! Great news, Larry!! I wish you many, many more!! MikeH > Yesterday I got the results of my first post-op PSA test: 0.00. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 10/19/1993 1.3 > 01/16/1993 0.9 > Yesterday I got the results of my first post-op PSA test: 0.00. Good! I like those round numbers. JohnG hi larry - may you be good for nothing (zero's) for a long, long, long. :) congrats!!!!! ~ curtis knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional WOW! 9 Gleason and 0.00 PSA. That is utterly fantastic. Congratulations! What a way to start off a new year.  SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 PSA .1 .1 .1 .3 .4 .8 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 Erection 05/12/2003 @ 48 HTbegins 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .1 Lupron 7/03, 8/03, 12/03 > Yesterday I got the results of my first post-op PSA test: 0.00. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 10/19/1993 1.3 > 01/16/1993 0.9 Larry, I am particularly interested in the various types of PSA assays since I am being monitored post-RP for recurrence. (PSA 33, G.S. 3+4, +seminal vesicles). Your reported 0.00 certainly is great news but I have to ask what assay that was because I neither know or have even heard of one that will give an absolute zero. Did you actually see the report or did some nurse just call you and say "zero," which to her might mean anything below 0.1? Also, w/ your pathology it seems odd they went 5 months before your first post-op PSA. Anyway, things could not be looking any better for you at the moment. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis Bill: I got the test done by Quest Diagnostics, and the lab lady told me they use the Very Sensitive PSA test when I went in to have blood drawn. Actually, I didn't see the test results, but I know it was 0.00 because my rad-onc told me that as soon as it hits 0.01 he's going to want to start me on HT. Seems his father died of PCa and he's inclined to recommend aggressive treatment. I asked if the test is really accurate enough to know whether 0.01 is a real number or a normal fluctuation due to an imperfect test (tolerance HAS to be plus-or-minus SOMETHING, doesn't it?) and he said he would accept 0.01, but not 0.02. My first post-op PSA was at about 12 weeks --- I didn't have the data arranged in a very logical format, and I had some extra mulch thrown in there too. Here's a pure chronological sort: Larry Diagnosed age 59 PSA 07/28/2003: 22 Biopsy 8/12/2003 Gleason 4+3=7 (first opinion) Gleason 4+5=9 (second opinion) CAT scan negative Bone scan and skeletal survey negative Da Vinci Robot-assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy 10/13/2003, one nerve spared. Final path report, Gleason 4+5=9/10 Seminal vesicles positive Lymph nodes negative PSA 01/09/2004: 0.00 Erectile function 01/12/2004: 0.00 > Larry, I am particularly interested in the various types of PSA assays > since I am being monitored post-RP for recurrence. (PSA 33, G.S. 3+4, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > RP 2/12/02 > Memphis Dammit Larry! LRP 3 months ago, NO PSA and erectile function now?!?!?! That hardle seems fair. Please tell me you pee your pants. SignatureProstate Cancer Survivor (so far), not a doctor PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 PSA .1 .1 .1 .3 .4 .8 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .3 .2 .2 .2 .3 Erection 05/12/2003 @ 48 HTbegins 07/21/2003 @ 48 PSA .1 Lupron 7/03, 8/03, 12/03 > Bill: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > RP 2/12/02 > > Memphis Steve: You stopped reading too soon --- erectile function is exactly the same as my PSA: 0.00 I'm still leery of going pad-less, so no, I don't pee my pants, I pee my pad. Plus, I bought 2 new pairs of black pants so nobody'll know when I do pee my pants. Larry > Dammit Larry! LRP 3 months ago, NO PSA and erectile function now?!?!?! > That hardle seems fair. Please tell me you pee your pants. Oops! Sorry about that. I thought you were announcing (albeit quietly) first functioning on the 12th. Oh, well. You're in the same boat with the rest of us schmucks. Gotta wait until the body is ready. > Steve: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Dammit Larry! LRP 3 months ago, NO PSA and erectile function now?!?!?! > > That hardle seems fair. Please tell me you pee your pants. "I got the test done by Quest Diagnostics, and the lab lady told me they use the Very Sensitive PSA test when I went in to have blood drawn. ... Actually, I didn't see the test results, but I know it was 0.00 because my rad-onc told me that as soon as it hits 0.01 he's going to want to start me on HT. ... Seems his father died of PCa and he's inclined to recommend aggressive treatment. I asked if the test is really accurate enough to know whether 0.01 is a real number or a normal fluctuation due to an imperfect test (tolerance HAS to be plus-or-minus SOMETHING, doesn't it?) and he said he would accept 0.01, but not 0.02." Larry, FWIW I just called and spoke to Quest and was told that the most sensitive test they offer is the "ultrasensitive" that goes down to 0.03, there is no "very sensitive" test. Furthermore, PSA of .2 or so can be produced by benign sources so .01 is not necessarilly an indication of residual PCa and, from what I know, very few doctors would start a man on HT at that level. It is not even a given that early HT is better than later treatment. If your doctor has any info supporting early intervention, I'd be interested in it since I am now at that juncture w/ a .37 after being at .2 or less for a year. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis Thanks for the info, Bill, very confusing --- until I can question my doc, I'm going to assume that when I said ".01" he was thinking "0.1". That would be more in line with his reluctance to abide by the conventional 0.4, also. After the prostate is removed, the only thing producing measurable PSA is the cancer, right? I don't think you can get a "false positive" of .2 post-RP, but I could be wrong. Larry > "I got the test done by Quest Diagnostics, and the lab lady told me > they [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > RP 2/12/02 > Memphis "After the prostate is removed, the only thing producing measurable PSA is the cancer, right? I don't think you can get a "false positive" of .2 post-RP, but I could be wrong." Larry, that's the common thinking but apparently some PSA is produced by the urethral/cowpers glands and residual benign prostate tissue. I'm not sure how much; my uro did not think my .2 meant PCa but he was wrong since my next one was .37. Bill Denton RP 2/12/02 Memphis When questioning my rad-onc about the accuracy of PSA tests I asked if PSA can be produced by anything other than cancer, and he mentioned the Cowpers glands, but said it's pretty rare for them to produce a significant amount. He's sticking by his .1 cut point. (not .01 apparently; thanks for helping clear that up, Bill --- but I still need to question him to make sure). Larry > "After the prostate is removed, the only thing producing measurable > PSA [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > RP 2/12/02 > Memphis |
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.