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 / July 2009

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Letter from Dr. Concerning PSA numbers and trends

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
jloomis - 23 Jul 2009 02:45 GMT
This is in regards to my letter to this group concerning my test and related
letter from the Dr. Brooks in the above post.
john

Hi John:

Sorry for the confusion with all of the numbers.  We use PSA to follow men
after radical prostatectomy and can now measure PSA down to very low numbers
(as you see in the report down to 0.02 or 2/100).  As you see, your PSA
measured 0.05 (or 5/100) which is very low.  For many years we and other
prostate cancer centers have recognized that these very low PSA numbers are
not alarming and show up in a fair number of men after surgery.  We have
learned that a truly measurable PSA that would lead us to consider therapy
is not these low numbers but values that are above 0.2-0.4 (20/100-40/100).
Your numbers are well below that and should be watched.  Check it again in
6-12 months.

JB
Alan Meyer - 24 Jul 2009 02:07 GMT
> This is in regards to my letter to this group concerning my test and
> related letter from the Dr. Brooks in the above post.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> above 0.2-0.4 (20/100-40/100).  Your numbers are well below
> that and should be watched.  Check it again in 6-12 months.

John,

I take the good doctor at his word here.  I believe that a number
of men have posted here with PSA values above the minimum
measurable amount, but have not gone on to develop recurrent
cancer.

There are other sources of PSA besides actual prostate tissue,
and there may also be prostate tissue that still remains in your
body that is not malignant that could account for the very slight
amounts that registered on the test.

I know you are concerned about the fact that the number is
measurable at all.  Who wouldn't be?  A doctor who deals with men
with PSAs in the hundreds doesn't necessarily get very excited by
a PSA of 0.05, but a patient sees things from a different
perspective.  However, I think it would be a mistake to allow this
concern to become overwhelming.  There is a very good chance that
you do not have recurrent cancer.

The next step with a rising PSA after surgery is often salvage
radiation.  The chance of success of such radiation depends on
acting before the cancer grows and spreads.  If I remember
correctly, radiation administered to patients with PSA below 1.0
has a higher success rate than with patients above 1.0, and if
the patient is below 0.4, or maybe even lower, the odds improve
further.  So you would want to identify a recurrence early.

On the other hand, getting radiation right now might give you
very little advantage as compared to radiation 6 months from now,
and would subject you to all the side effects of a treatment that
you don't yet know you need.

I think if I were you I would want frequent PSA testing for a
while.  Dr. Brooks suggests 6 months to a year.  I'm wondering if
it wouldn't be good to get one more often for a few cycles.  When
my PSA went up after radiation, my radiation oncologist tested me
every month for a while until we saw that it was bouncing aound
rather than rising steadily.  Perhaps monthly is excessive, but
perhaps every three months is not.

The test is cheap and non-invasive.  If the numbers are rising,
you will find that out early and be able to talk to a radiation
oncologist while radiation is most likely to be effective.  If
the numbers go down, you'll know that early too and be able to
put your mind at rest.

Good luck.

   Alan
jloomis - 24 Jul 2009 03:10 GMT
Hi Alan,
I feel pretty good about everything.  I have been testing for almost 10
years now with similiar PSA accounts.....depending on who does the test and
how fine the testing is.
In rural areas the test is very rough....and not as fine as when going to
Stanford......
I will go back to Stanford in the future for testing.
I do not feel that I need any radiation......

Thanks for your input.
John
>> This is in regards to my letter to this group concerning my test and
>> related letter from the Dr. Brooks in the above post.
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
>    Alan
Steve Kramer - 24 Jul 2009 15:15 GMT
: I think if I were you I would want frequent PSA testing for a
: while.  Dr. Brooks suggests 6 months to a year.

Alan makes a good point, John.  If there is any apprehension at all, you
should test again in three months.  And take care of your colon in the days
prior to the test.  You don't want to agitate whatever prostate tissue might
be left over.

Signature

PSA 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 undetectable since; last checked on 06/04/09
Illegitimati non carborundum

RickMerrill - 24 Jul 2009 21:53 GMT
> This is in regards to my letter to this group concerning my test and related
> letter from the Dr. Brooks in the above post.
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> JB

All sorts of organs in the human body contribute to PSA at these levels.
 
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



©2009 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.