Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / February 2004
PSA Puzzle
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Frrank - 30 Jan 2004 14:50 GMT I?m puzzled about my rising PSA levels following radical prostatectomy eleven years ago.
For about eight years, annual tests showed my PSA at less than 0.1. Then it came to life with 0.25. It rose and fell slightly, but last August the reading was 0.52, and three weeks ago it was 1.01.
Here?s what?s puzzling me:
A couple of days after my operation, the surgeon told me he was confident he had removed all the malignant tissue. The next day the hospital?s pathology lab confirmed that the tumor had not spread outside the prostatic capsule. So what can be producing the PSA?
If I was correctly informed that the entire cancerous prostate had been cut out, and if it is true that only prostate cells can secrete PSA, then that can only mean, as I see it, that some malignant cells escaped when the biopsy needle punched several holes through the prostatic capsule about four weeks before the operation.
Does anybody have any thoughts about this? Should I resign myself to radiation or chemotherapy? If so, which of the two treatment options should I go for?
FYI, I?m 77 years old and otherwise in good health. I told the surgeon before the operation that it would be nice to come out of it sexually intact, but the important thing was to get rid of all the tumor. The vital nerves didn?t survive.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions
Frank Milner (fmilner@pathcom.com)
Alan Meyer - 30 Jan 2004 15:45 GMT > I?m puzzled about my rising PSA levels following radical prostatectomy eleven years ago. > > For about eight years, annual tests showed my PSA at less than 0.1. Then it came to life with 0.25. It rose and fell slightly, but last August the reading was 0.52, and three weeks ago it was 1.01.
> Here?s what?s puzzling me: > > A couple of days after my operation, the surgeon told me he was confident he had removed all the malignant tissue. The next day the hospital?s pathology lab confirmed that the tumor had not spread outside the prostatic capsule. So what can be producing the PSA?
> If I was correctly informed that the entire cancerous prostate had been cut out, and if it is true that only prostate cells can secrete PSA, then that can only mean, as I see it, that some malignant cells escaped when the biopsy needle punched several holes through the prostatic capsule about four weeks before the operation.
> Does anybody have any thoughts about this? Should I resign myself to radiation or chemotherapy? If so, which of the two treatment options should I go for?
> FYI, I?m 77 years old and otherwise in good health. I told the surgeon before the operation that it would be nice to come out of it sexually intact, but the important thing was to get rid of all the tumor. The vital nerves didn?t survive.
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions > > Frank Milner (fmilner@pathcom.com) I once consulted a radiation oncologist about the benefits of surgery vs. radiation. At one point, he made the following comments:
1. The surgeon _thinks_ he took out all the prostate tissue, but he can't know for certain.
2. The pathologist _thinks_ the margins are clear, but he can't test every cell on the surface of the removed tissue.
So there are really a number of possibilities. I don't know if escaping via the biopsy holes is one of them. One possibility could be that trace amounts of prostate tissue remained after the operation. Another is that trace quantities of tumor cells had already penetrated beyond the prostate before the operation.
At this point, if I were you, I'd ask for a consultation with a radiation oncologist and/or a medical oncologist.
One thing I'd ask about is an immediate beginning of hormone suppression therapy. That's pretty easy to take (my main side effect was hot flashes). It may be that hormones alone will suppress the cancer for a number of years, after which it could still be a number of years before any symptoms appear.
If the oncologists recommend radiation, the HT might hold things in check while the radiation is planned and scheduled, or while you're waiting for appointments to find out if radiation is worthwhile.
I've had some external beam radiation, and it was not difficult at all. Five days a week you go in and lie still on the table. You feel nothing at all during the treatment. After about two minutes of the machine moving around and zapping you, you pull your pants up and go about your business.
In order to determine whether radiation will be beneficial, they might try a CAT scan and/or MRI scan to see if they can see any cancer in the bones or prostate bed. My understanding is that if they see it in the bones, curative radiation is not possible. If they don't see it, they might try radiating the prostate bed.
Good luck.
Alan
Leonard Evens - 30 Jan 2004 16:39 GMT > I’m puzzled about my rising PSA levels following radical prostatectomy
> eleven years ago. > > For about eight years, annual tests showed my PSA at less than 0.1. Then
> it came to life with 0.25. It rose and fell slightly, but last August the
> reading was 0.52, and three weeks ago it was 1.01. > > Here’s what’s puzzling me: > > A couple of days after my operation, the surgeon told me he was confident
> he had removed all the malignant tissue. The next day the hospital’s pathology
> lab confirmed that the tumor had not spread outside the prostatic capsule.
> So what can be producing the PSA? It is not possible to be certain about such things, but most likely some cancer cells with metastatic capability escaped before the surgery and managed to survive in your body, and eventually to multiply. It is possible, but unlikely that this resulted from either the biopsy or the surgery itself. Probably, it happened well before either.
You don't say what the Gleason score was. If it was in the rage 5-7, and as you indicate, the post-surgical pathology report indicated everything was okay, your chances of being PSA free at 8 years, according to Sloan-Kettering was around 95 percent. That is pretty high, but it is not 100 percent, so one in twenty such cases will show a PSA increase. It appears you were just very unlucky.
> If I was correctly informed that the entire cancerous prostate had been cut
> out, and if it is true that only prostate cells can secrete PSA, then that
> can only mean, as I see it, that some malignant cells escaped when the biopsy
> needle punched several holes through the prostatic capsule about four weeks
> before the operation. I don't see any reason to suspect this. It is known that cancer cells escape the prostate all the time, but don't survive in the body. In your case, obviously some such cells did survive, but it appears your body kept them under control for an extended period of time. Just when they left your prostate is impossible to determine.
> Does anybody have any thoughts about this? Should I resign myself to
> radiation
> or chemotherapy? If so, which of the two treatment options should I go for? You really have to discuss that with your doctors. We here are just prostate cancer veterans like yourself and don't have the expertise of a medical professional specializing in prostate cancer. You may want to get more than one opinion.
Having said that, let me add what I know. It is possible the cancer cells have been living in the prostate bed and never left that area. In that case radiation to the local area may cure it entirely. Your doctors may be able to suggest some tests which will help determine if that is the case, and they will also know how likely it is 8-11 years after surgery in a case like yours. If it is determined that the cancer has escaped to distant sites, the standard treatment is hormone suppressing drugs which cut out the production of testosterone, which is needed by most prostate cancer cells to grow. There is still some difference of opinion about when to start such therapy. In most cases, it eventually fails, but it can take a long time. Again you have to rely on your doctor's advice, but perhaps you should find doctors with differing opinions about that and one who has not yet formed a firm opinion about which side it right.
The good news is that it will probably be quite a long while before you show clinical symptoms of spread, even if the cancer has spread to distant sites. This depends on Gleason score. See Patrick Walsh's Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer for details. (Walsh is one of those who believes that you should wait for clinical symptoms before beginning hormone suppressing drugs.) The drugs should keep you healthy for a while after that. There is a very good chance you will die of something else at a ripe old age and never be seriously bothered by your prostate cancer.
> FYI, I’m 77 years old and otherwise in good health. I told the surgeon
> before the operation that it would be nice to come out of it sexually intact,
> but the important thing was to get rid of all the tumor. The vital nerves
> didn’t survive. > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions Best of luck, whatever you decide to do.
> Frank Milner (fmilner@pathcom.com) > Tee Doubleyou - 30 Jan 2004 17:58 GMT -------------------------cut-----------------------------------------------------------
>I don't see any reason to suspect this. It is known that cancer cells >escape the prostate all the time, but don't survive in the body. In >your case, obviously some such cells did survive, but it appears your >body kept them under control for an extended period of time. Just when >they left your prostate is impossible to determine.
>> Frank Milner (fmilner@pathcom.com) Could you elaborate more on your statement :"It is known that cancer cells escape the prostate all the time,"
Tee
Alan Meyer - 30 Jan 2004 19:51 GMT > -------------------------cut----------------------------------------------------------- > >I don't see any reason to suspect this. It is known that cancer cells [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Could you elaborate more on your statement :"It is known that cancer > cells escape the prostate all the time," Tee,
I also read that cancer cells escape all the time. I think it was in Walsh's book, but I don't have it with me. If I remember correctly, it said that cancer cells were found in the blood stream of people with PCa, even when the actual cancer was fully confined.
The theory was that those cells usually just die off in the blood stream. Something else happens, not well understood, that causes them to establish themselves as distant metastases.
My understanding of the biochemistry of cancer is less than rudimentary, so I might have this all wrong.
Unfortunately, even the experts are still stumped by many aspects of this disease.
Alan
Leonard Evens - 30 Jan 2004 22:46 GMT > -------------------------cut----------------------------------------------------------- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Could you elaborate more on your statement :"It is known that cancer > cells escape the prostate all the time," I am just quoting what Patrick Walsh says in Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer. See pp. 139-40. I probably put it too strongly by saying "it is known". Walsh says "In fact, the more we learn about cancer in the prostate and elsewhere, the more we understand the circulation of cancer cells in the blood is probably a fiarly common event---even in cancers that are curable." He then goes on to point out that the relevant question is whether those cells have developed metastatic capability, i.e., the ability to live outside their normal environment.
> Tee Tee Doubleyou - 31 Jan 2004 22:32 GMT -------------------------cut-----------------------------------------------------------
>>>I don't see any reason to suspect this. It is known that cancer cells
>>>escape the prostate all the time, but don't survive in the body. In >>>your case, obviously some such cells did survive, but it appears your [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I am just quoting what Patrick Walsh says in Guide to Surviving Prostate
>Cancer. See pp. 139-40. I probably put it too strongly by saying "it >is known". Walsh says "In fact, the more we learn about cancer in the >prostate and elsewhere, the more we understand the circulation of cancer
>cells in the blood is probably a fiarly common event---even in cancers >that are curable." He then goes on to point out that the relevant >question is whether those cells have developed metastatic capability, >i.e., the ability to live outside their normal environment. > >> Tee Thanks. I have a copy of the book but did not remember that information. Tee
DanR - 04 Feb 2004 21:29 GMT Good point about the circulating cancer cells. They are measurable. Although no way to know, this could be the source of the now-recurrent PCa. DanR
Steve Kramer - 30 Jan 2004 16:47 GMT > For about eight years, annual tests showed my PSA at less than 0.1. Then it came to > life with 0.25. It rose and fell slightly, but last August the reading was 0.52, and three > weeks ago it was 1.01. I cannot imagine how frustrating this must be. I was in the clear for a year once, and less than a year the second time (and this is a 3 strikes and out disease for the most part). But, had I gone 11 years, I would have been quite certain that I was cured.
You and a very few people like you are why doctors are not willing to say you are cured. The closest I've seen is when a medical journal or a doc will say, "15 years is considered to be...." But, even at 15 they hedge.
You might have had one solitary cell, or so few cells as to be no problem for your immune system to keep them at bay. They lived or were dormant, and your body kept them in check. Now, it is not. There is a couple of possible reasons, but the most pertinent point is that you still have cancer and the cells are multiplying.
> Does anybody have any thoughts about this? Should I resign myself to radiation > or chemotherapy? If so, which of the two treatment options should I go for? > > FYI, I'm 77 years old and otherwise in good health. I told the surgeon before
> the operation that it would be nice to come out of it sexually intact, but the > important thing was to get rid of all the tumor. The vital nerves didn't survive.
At 77, I think you are on the cusp. Your PSA has gone from less then 0.1 to 1.01 in three years. I do not know how to figure the doubling rate, but it seems like it is about 1 year. So, next year, you may be 2.02, then 4.04, and at 80, 8.08. The question you have to ask yourself, and be honest in answering, is how long are you going to live regardless of the cancer. If you think 90 is an accurate assessment, I would look into radiation of the prostate bed. Or, since you have no sexual function left, hormone treatment.
I do not think you are going to die of prostate cancer no matter which solution you decide.
 Signature Prostate 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
c palmer - 30 Jan 2004 19:48 GMT hi frank - simply put, you have prostate cells generating psa.
that said - you know you don't have a prostate, so you and i both know what's the answer is.
that said - what are the options. you still and radiation treatment available to you.
i, myself, feel that is the best way to go at this point.
there is different types of radiation and it has come a long ways since you last had your RP, so you may want to do your homework before signing up for one. they don't have the horror stories like they use to.
with all this said, that should kill those little critters and knock the psa back to <.01
if, and only if, does it climb again, then you still have HT to look at and with your numbers right now, i would have to say that by the time, if and when they would ever happen, you might be watching tv channels from the moon.
FYI - the doubling rate is NOT linear. it increases as the growth of the cancer increases, therefore producing more psa. because of this, this is an indicator - and that is all it is - of how fast the cancer is producing. to clarify this on a personal note, you said that your psa was .52 in august and 1.01 in january which is a span of 5 months tops, depending on when the blood was drawn. so, right now, you doubling rate is at 5 months. but be advised, that you could pull your blood in 3 months and it could be a 2.00, which means that the cancer has doubled again. now, if you pulled it the blood in 3 months and it was 1.2, then that would mean that the cancer has slowed down. it is only a indicator of what's going on inside your body.
that is why, you questioned your rising psa level. that is what's going on. it can still be knocked back down with no problem right now, and i want you to know you are in a pretty good position in that respect, but like life, waiting decreases the odds as the opposing team gets more hits in.
hope this info helps.
~ curtis
knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional
C. Paul Williams, MD - 30 Jan 2004 21:29 GMT Frank, I'm a radiologist who performs prostate biopsies (and all other flavors of needle biopsies). I've also had PCa and a prostatectomy, so I'm a legit member of this club. The question you ask about the prostate tumor cells being released by the biopsy is a very interesting one and one which we have asked ourselves for years. The official term is "seeding" of the needle tract with tumor cells. It unquestionably happens rarely...most notably with renal cell carcinoma where tumor nodules have actually later been discovered along the needle tracts. I've never seen this described with prostate biopsy but it is certainly theoretically possible. I suspect it is vanishingly rare, if it occurs. What is more likely is that although both the surgeon and pathologist were confident in a complete resection 8 years ago, a tiny amount of either normal prostate or tumor was left behind. It could also be that an undetectable metastasis had already occured. Unfortunately, there is virtually no way you will ever know for certain. While a variety of treatment options are available, I suspect a course of "watchful waiting" will be prescribed for you...if it took 8 years to recur or show up, chances are excellent that it won't bother you for the rest of your normal life span. That said, speak with an oncologist or radiation therapist for their opinion, as I'm neither. Good luck, CPW
Steve Kramer - 30 Jan 2004 22:19 GMT Hey, Doc! How are things up in Michigan? Haven't heard from you in awhile. Glad you're still around.
Also haven't heard from Henry EV in awhile. I was wondering if you were in touch with him. Only because he was a physician.
 Signature Prostate 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 "
C. Paul Williams, MD - 31 Jan 2004 13:47 GMT > Hey, Doc! How are things up in Michigan? Haven't heard from you in awhile. > Glad you're still around. > > Also haven't heard from Henry EV in awhile. I was wondering if you were in > touch with him. Only because he was a physician. Hi Steve, Yeah, I'm still around. I mostly lurk these days since you guys all answer the good questions more thoroughly than I ever could. I will still pitch in when a question in my area of expertise shows up. As to the other kind of "around", I'm happy to report a 1 year 6 month post op undetectable PSA in December. I feel especially fortunate given the losses the group has suffered in the recent months... As to Michigan, someone turned on the snow machine here in Traverse City and won't turn it off. We're having the best snow year I can remember for a long time. I don't know Henry EV. Thanks for noticing! My best to all in the new year. CPW
Steve Kramer - 31 Jan 2004 21:21 GMT > Hi Steve, Yeah, I'm still around. I mostly lurk these days since you > guys all answer the good questions more thoroughly than I ever could. > I will still pitch in when a question in my area of expertise shows > up. As to the other kind of "around", I'm happy to report a 1 year 6 > month post op undetectable PSA in December. I don't know about that, but I am very happy to hear about the 18 month PSA. I'm beginning to wonder if that is where the 'hump' is. Get over that and it seems like the odds are on your side.
Yes, indeed. Very happy to hear it, doc.
 Signature Prostate 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
Dale - 31 Jan 2004 19:54 GMT .
> While a variety of treatment options are available, I suspect a course > of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > opinion, as I'm neither. > Good luck, CPW Doctor Williams,
Good to hear from you again. I completely agree that the "watchful waiting" approach should be considered in this case.After eight years, to now have a slowly increasing PSA is not something to panic about. Even in good health, at the age of 77 it is unlikely that PCa will develop to the extent to even cause any symptoms during Frank's lifetime. Hormone therapy could always be started if symptoms arise or the PSA should climb to a much higher level. Why put yourself through the side effects at this time?
Dale P Denver, CO
Danny McCarty - 01 Feb 2004 01:01 GMT >Subject: PSA Puzzle >From: "Frrank" fmilner@nospam.pathcom.com >Date: 1/30/2004 8:50 AM Central Standard Time >Message-id: <17e2a4de5a8f4869dbbfaa1f0215bd99@localhost.talkaboutsupport.com> > >I’m puzzled about my rising PSA levels following radical prostatectomy eleven
>years ago. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >FYI, I’m 77 years old and otherwise in good health. I told the surgeon before
>the operation that it would be nice to come out of it sexually intact, but >the important thing was to get rid of all the tumor. The vital nerves didn’t [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Frank Milner (fmilner@pathcom.com) > 1.01/0.52 = 2^k so log 1.9423 = k log 2 so 0.2883 = 0.3010 k so k = 0.958, or close to 1, so the doubling time is about 5 months.
|
|
|