Such results are statistically meaningless.

I assume you are talking about PSA tests after a radical prostatectomy
since values below 0.1 must be exceedingly rare for men with intact
prostates.

There could be two reasons for what they are doing.   First, they may
not be using the highly sensitive tests that can measure values less
than 0.1 ng/ml.  Many urologists consider the use of ultrasensitive not
clinically useful.   Second, even if they are using the ultrasensitive
tests, they may believe that patients will be unduly alarmed about
results which they feel don't mean anything.   Usually, no action will
be taken until the PSA reaches .1 or even .2.  On the other hand,
proponents of ultrasensitive tests do think tracking the results at
lower levels can be helpful.

It may be a reasonable compromise to tell you just what the values are
if you insist, but not otherwise.   The only question in my mind is just
how difficult they make it for you to find out.   If they make it
extremely difficult, that would be something to object about.   If it is
just that they don't routinely report lower values, that may be quite
reasonable.

Let's say you're measuring this with a ruler that you hold with your hand.
Your hand shakes a little - nothing you can do about it. One time you
measure it comes up .08, the next time it's .1, later it might be .07, etc.

The measurements are affected by the shaking of your hand, they're all
close, but probably none of them is the exact PSA level. The instruments
and procedures labs use for PSA measurement have similar small variations.
The important thing is that none of the readings is anything to be worried
about. The hospitals don't report numbers that are "shakey", and
communicate the important information that the numbers are below the point
of concern.

Hi Ralph...I assume you are talking about the ultrasensitive PSA test,
there would be no "additional" information to report if it were the
standard test with a lower detection limit around 0.1 ng/ml.
Withholding the results of the ultrasensitive test seems unreasonable.
It seems that the hospitals are assuming that the patient has
requested a product / service and he , the patient, is incabable of
understanding the results.

For the post-PCa-treatment patient, the ultrasensitive test is a
validated procedure that can afford the patient a "heads up" on
disease progression.  Thereby providing the patient with 1) additional
time to plan, 2) a better estimate of doubling time (because
meaningful data has been collected over a longer time interval) and 3)
an oppotunity to react sooner in terms of salvage therapy.
Furthermore, for the patient following the IHT route, ultrasensitive
information is important in terms of defining the nadir and seeing
when the PSA begins to increase during the off-cycle.

The ultra-sensitive PSA is not for everyone, but for those who select
it, the information should be made available.  I would encourage you
to "educate" the hospital personnel who have made this decision and
work for a change in policy...Best wishes and good health, Ron