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 / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

PSA

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 12:20 GMT
News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
finger, you cant tell if cancer is on the opposite side, not yet large.

Anyone got any comments on PSA? I know they pick up cancer but the word I
have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also done
so.

I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been diagnosed
with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out prior to being
hospitalised.

Thanks.
George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 13:10 GMT
> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
> as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Thanks.

  What you probably read is one expert's finding that the type of tumors
which need to be treated are those which can be felt.
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 20:34 GMT
>> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as
>> accurate
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>   What you probably read is one expert's finding that the type of tumors
> which need to be treated are those which can be felt.

Not really. It was actually logical to me. If there is a small cancer
growing on the opposite side of the prostate to where the finger feels, the
doctor wont feel it yet that cancer may be terribly aggressive and within 6
months be unfortunate news.

Been a little more on my mind of late. A good friend died of bowel cancer
that looks like it started on the prostate. He was on chemo for 5 months on
some drug that was fairly new and doing well. He would have the treatment on
a Friday so have the whole day off, be sick that day and over the weekend
and good to go on Monday. Never lost any hair at all. They had to change his
chemicals, though, because apparently 5 months is all you can take or it
starts to kill you. So, they put him on other stuff but gave him a month's
break in which time he had developed a minor infection he didn't know about
inside him. When they put him on the new stuff, the infection took off like
a wildfire and that was that. He died New Year's Eve but thankfully was able
to spend his last Xmas Day with his family.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 22:16 GMT
>>>News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as
>>>accurate
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> doctor wont feel it yet that cancer may be terribly aggressive and within 6
> months be unfortunate news.

You have to try to avoid trying to think these things out ourselves.  We
all have models in our head about what is going on, but the biology
doesn't care what we are thinking.  A lot about disease, including
prostate cancer, is not well understood and even the models which
experts develop from years of study sometimes turn out to be misleading.

What you describe can happen, but I have no idea how often it happens
and whether it materially affects the statistics.

> Been a little more on my mind of late. A good friend died of bowel cancer
> that looks like it started on the prostate. He was on chemo for 5 months on
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> a wildfire and that was that. He died New Year's Eve but thankfully was able
> to spend his last Xmas Day with his family.

Bowel cancer doesn't usually start in the prostate.  It can metastsize
to different organs, but I thought the usual place it goes to first is
the bone.  Also, they don't treat prostate cancer, even that which has
metastzsized with chemotherapy like the kind you describe.  But of
course this could be some unusual form of prostate cancer.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 14:02 GMT
> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
> as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also done
> so.

That is definitely wrong.  Indeed the great majority of men treated for
prostate cancer these days have had their cancers detected by PSA
testing rather than digital rectal examination.  PSA testing can detect
prostate cancer earlier than a digital rectal examination would.  It can
do so either because the PSA level is higher than some agreed upon
threshhold or because the PSA has been rising too quickly over a two
year period.  But PSA can rise because of other reasons.  Prostatitis,
i.e., imflammation of the prostate, can be one cause.  Also, as men age,
their prostates are likely to enlarge, and that can increase PSA levels.
 That is probably the main reason for increased PSA in older men.

Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA.  So
urologists recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal
examination--the "finger".  Each would catch prostate cancers which the
other will miss, but in the great majority of cases, the PSA test will
find it earlier.

If you are at special risk for prostate cancer, then it would be wise to
have regular PSA tests in addition to digital rectal examinations (but
see below).  If you wait until a doctor can feel something,  you run the
risk that the cancer will be more advanced by the time it has been
found.  For example, in my case, the cancer was found by PSA testing
using the rapid rise criterion.  The risk before surgery that my cancer
would be found to have spread beyond the prostate was about 42 percent
and the more serious risk that it would be found to have spread to the
seminal vesicles or lymph nodes was about 5 percent.  Had I waited for
the cancer to be felt by the doctor's finger, these risks would have
been elevated, depending on the specifics, to 64-87 percent and 9-18
percent.

There is some controversy about the value of PSA testing, but I believe
that most of those who are skeptical about its value would agree with
others that it makes sense for men who are at special risk for the
disease, either because a close male relative had it before age 65-70 or
because of ethnic background.

However, it should be noted that prostate cancer usually grows slowly,
and for many older men, it is not likely to be a problem.  If your life
expectancy is less than 10 years,  even if you have prostate cancer, it
may not be advisable to treat it aggressively, since you will probably
die of something else before it gets to be a real problem.  Some of the
prostate cancers detected by PSA testing may not become a serious
problem for 10-15 years.  Indeed, some of them may never be a problem no
matter how long the patient lives.  So it is possible PSA testing may
not be worth the effort in your case.

One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently
publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer
claiming something along these lines.  He recommended not testing for
PSA and waiting until something showed up on digital rectal examination.
 This is decidedly a minority opinion which few other experts agree
with.  Indeed, urologists have noted that after the advent of routine
PSA testing,  the percentage of more aggressive relatively advanced
prostate cancers has decreased greatly.   Implicit in this man's
conclusion is the belief that the great majority of the cancers
discovered by PSA testing don't need to be treated at all, so there is
nothing to lose by waiting for something to be felt.  But the success
rate at curing prostate cancer is definitely lower if you wait for that,
so this "expert" is being rather fatalistic about the disease, and
assuming that those which "really need to be treated", as he sees it,
are often incurable anyway.

However, all this is generality, and you are one man.  You would be best
advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with
him/her.  The physician can take your particular situation into account
and advise you about the risks and benefits for you either way.

> I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been diagnosed
> with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out prior to being
> hospitalised.

See above.

> Thanks.
George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 16:44 GMT
> One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently
> publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> nothing to lose by waiting for something to be felt.  But the success
> rate at curing prostate cancer is definitely lower

  Unproven statement Len and you know it.  The science has never been
done,. as you well know.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 21:57 GMT
>>One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently
>>publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>    Unproven statement Len and you know it.  The science has never been
> done,. as you well know.

Actually your argument also applies to diagnosing prostate cancer by
digital rectal examination.  No double blind or otherwise suitably
randomized study has ever been done to show that life span is
increased---your criterion---by doing such examinations.   Indeed there
are those who would argue not only against PSA testing but also against
regular DREs.   They would leave all prostate cancer to be discovered
through symptoms of advanced prostate cancer.

In any event, the statments I made are supported by lots of evidence.
For example, the Partin Table studies I referred to show that after
surgery, cancers are generally more advanced in T2 or higher stages.
Also, the significant decline in advanced prostate cancer diagnosis
after the advent of PSA testing.

As usual you conflate different issues and always come up with the same
simple minded response.
George Conklin - 13 Feb 2005 23:11 GMT
> >>One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently
> >>publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> regular DREs.   They would leave all prostate cancer to be discovered
> through symptoms of advanced prostate cancer.

 And as I have said, women are 20 years ahead of men because they insisted
on studies.  We are now what, about 10 years into the studies for men, and
no results yet announced.  Why?  Because so far it is not what tradition
wants to hear.  As you say, maybe 15 years out something may emerge.  Don't
know, but you don't either.
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 20:52 GMT
>> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as
>> accurate as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg,
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> likely to enlarge, and that can increase PSA levels. That is probably the
> main reason for increased PSA in older men.

Thanks for that info. The stuff I had read said that PSAs did a hell of a
lot of false positives and not a small amount of negative results when there
should have been positives.

> Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA.  So urologists
> recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal examination--the "finger".
> Each would catch prostate cancers which the other will miss, but in the
> great majority of cases, the PSA test will find it earlier.

I find it more than logical that a cancer on the opposite side of the
prostate to where the finger feels would not be found by a finger probe and
that worries me a bit. Like most people I hate the finger test but put up
with it until I was treated like a hypochondriac for going for them, at
which point I stopped going. I had 3 tests in 3 years. Two tests were within
6 months but were not my idea and totally unavoidable as I was bleeding and
there was really some worry about what was causing that (nothing to do with
prostate or cancer as it turned out and healed of it's own accord thank
goodness). When you get told by a doctor that "maybe it is about time for
you to grow up" you tend not to go back to a doctor. Strange thing is that
he was the same guy who told me I was especially at risk for prostate cancer
due to my chronic bacterial prostatitis. In any case, this was the same
doctor who ended up in hospital with prostate and bowel cancer himself.

> If you are at special risk for prostate cancer, then it would be wise to
> have regular PSA tests in addition to digital rectal examinations (but

Never had a PSA test in my life but from what you have posted, I would
assume my PSA results would be unusually high anyway with my condition or
likely not found as I take a large dose of Saw Palmetto to help with the
problem and that is apparently able to mask PSA if I have that right.

> see below).  If you wait until a doctor can feel something,  you run the
> risk that the cancer will be more advanced by the time it has been found.

That is why I am unlikely to be found out until in hospital. I have changed
doctors since that guy suffered this himself not due to that fact but due to
his pronouncement of me as a hypochondriac even though it had been near 2
years since I last saw him.

> For example, in my case, the cancer was found by PSA testing using the
> rapid rise criterion.  The risk before surgery that my cancer would be
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> disease, either because a close male relative had it before age 65-70 or
> because of ethnic background.

Ethnic background makes a difference? That is something I didnt know. Which
race? I know a lot of men around my age who also have chronic prostatitis,
have had prostate cancer or are going to see if they have it soon. I am 50
this year. The people I know, like me, are all Caucasian.

> However, it should be noted that prostate cancer usually grows slowly, and
> for many older men, it is not likely to be a problem.  If your life
> expectancy is less than 10 years,  even if you have prostate cancer, it
> may not be advisable to treat it aggressively, since you will probably die
> of something else before it gets to be a real problem.  Some of the

Thanks for that info. I also have multiple auto immune problems (not AIDS
but about 6 others anyway) and the worst problem I have is severe untreated
sleep apnea (been through it all since 94 and no help) which is likely to be
the cause of my death due to causing a heart attack before 10 years are out.
At 10 years old, I thought I would live forever. 40 years later, I wonder if
I will live 10 years. Such is life. There are worse ways to die!

> prostate cancers detected by PSA testing may not become a serious problem
> for 10-15 years.  Indeed, some of them may never be a problem no matter
> how long the patient lives.  So it is possible PSA testing may not be
> worth the effort in your case.

However, the catch-22 is that you wont ever know it wasnt worth having PSA
until you have it. Correct?

> One reason you may be confused about this is that news media recently
> publicized a study by one physician with a background in prostate cancer
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> fatalistic about the disease, and assuming that those which "really need
> to be treated", as he sees it, are often incurable anyway.

I suppose his conclusions may be a result of his job. I think my slef
employment of sticking my fingers inside computers to fix their problems is
one that is more desirable to most men. :)

> However, all this is generality, and you are one man.  You would be best
> advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with
> him/her.  The physician can take your particular situation into account
> and advise you about the risks and benefits for you either way.

I am not totally sure I could find a doctor I trust any longer. Having been
told to grow up by one, you tend to get a bad opinion of the whole lot of
them.
Leonard Evens - 13 Feb 2005 22:26 GMT
> Thanks for that info. The stuff I had read said that PSAs did a hell of a
> lot of false positives and not a small amount of negative results when there
> should have been positives.

There are a substantial number of false positives.  But what that means
is that you have a biopsy and the biopsy is negative.  The biopsy
procedure is quite safe and not particularly painful for most men.  It
would be better of course if they could reduce the number of false
positives,  but it is not a disaster to have a biopsy and find it comes
out negative.

It is also possible for the PSA to be normal and the patient to have
prostate cancer.   But there isn't much we can do at present about that.
 It is the reason why you should also have a digital rectal exam.  The
two of them together will catch the overwhelmingly majority of prostate
cancers.

>>Not all men with prostate cancer will have an elevated PSA.  So urologists
>>recommend both PSA testing and digital rectal examination--the "finger".
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> he was the same guy who told me I was especially at risk for prostate cancer
> due to my chronic bacterial prostatitis.

I am not a physician myself, but I've never seen it stated that
prostatitis increased the risk of prostate cancer.   You should find
another doctor and ask his opinion.  Don't just take my word for it.

> In any case, this was the same
> doctor who ended up in hospital with prostate and bowel cancer himself.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> likely not found as I take a large dose of Saw Palmetto to help with the
> problem and that is apparently able to mask PSA if I have that right.

You shouldn't be trying to get medical advice over the internet.  Find a
doctor you trust, make sure you get him to explain it all to you, and
then make sure you get regular exams.

>>However, all this is generality, and you are one man.  You would be best
>>advised to find a physician you trust and discuss the whole matter with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> told to grow up by one, you tend to get a bad opinion of the whole lot of
> them.

There are plenty of good doctors out there.  You shouldn't let your
experience with one doctor put you off the whole profession.
MisterSkippy - 13 Feb 2005 14:23 GMT
>News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
>as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Thanks.

I think it is one more tool, the advantage being non-invasive. It is
most certainly not 100%. For most people the odds of regular PSA and
DRE exams detecting possible PCa early enough to allow for long term
survival after treatment are pretty good. Some people are going to
slip through the diagnostic cracks. These things happen. You do what
you can and then you live your life.
May I ask why you describe yourself as a prime candidate for PCa? I'm
at higher risk than some due to high grade PIN, but I'm taking some
steps in an attempt to reduce that.

"When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's
constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into
his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all."
- Justice William O. Douglas
Gut-Buster - 13 Feb 2005 21:03 GMT
>>News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
>>as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> at higher risk than some due to high grade PIN, but I'm taking some
> steps in an attempt to reduce that.

I'm only going by what the doctor who called me a hypochondriac said to me.
He said I was that because of my other medically proven health problems
added to my chronic prostatitis. Due to my oxygen level going down to less
than 60% every night while asleep, my body is not as good at fighting off
problems as the average 50 year old apparently. Add all that to my chronic
prostatitis which is bacterial and he says that is me. Seems logical. As an
example, if I cut myself and that gets a minor infection then it can take
about 6 months before it is gone. When I was in my 20s IF I got an infection
(which wasn't likely as I have a slight keloid problem which strangely
helped the healing process), a little ointment on it and a day or two later
it was gone.

Don't take all this the wrong way. I honestly don't go through life worrying
if a meteor is about to hit me on the head. I realise I am unemployable as I
have to sleep every afternoon and even on my best days am not as good as a
20 year old physically but in spite of all that and 7 years of my life where
I was unable to do much more than get out of bed, I got myself back to the
position of being able to make a small income. I cant live off it but it
helps. I just don't give in but while saying that, I want to be prepared. If
I were to be told I had prostate cancer and my chances of survival were less
than favourable, I would likely not have much time to get things together.
If I knew I had it and treatment could give me another 6 months then I WOULD
have time to tidy things up.

I just want to be prepared for anything so my wife wont have extra stuff on
her plate.
c palmer - 15 Feb 2005 10:42 GMT
From: D-D-D-DONT.stare@me.privates (Gut-Buster)

Anyone got any comments on PSA? I know they pick up cancer but the word
I have heard is that it only does so when blind Freddie would have also
done so.
I only ask not to upset people but because though I haven't been
diagnosed with it, I am a prime candidate who is unlikely to find out
prior to being hospitalised.
Thanks.
=================

hi - i'll stay with the facts.  

it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body
that produces psa.  

it is a fact that the psa test checks for a particular enzyme the
prostate produces.

it is a fact that in order for ANY test to be accurate, it must pass two
standards.  validity and is it dependable.   is the test producing a
valid test and check for what it is intended for?  the answer is yes.
is it dependable in the fact that it will produce the same result time
and time again.  that answer is yes.

so, what do you have.  you have the fact that the prostate produces psa,
the psa checks for psa.

ok, does that prove that you have prostate cancer.  NO!!  

then what does it prove???   it proves that something is going on inside
your body and it needs to be investigated.  much like the check engine
like on the dashboard on a car.  

it could be used as a warning sign and it is a tool to be used to help
dx the final outcome.

with the help of the DRE, and the psa, one gets more input and  a better
idea than if one was to rely on just one test alone.  

now....does it work?   in MY particular case, i would have to say yes
!!!  

i have a neg. DRE up to 8 hours before my surgery, yet the psa test was
the alarm that triggered the biopsy and found that i have cancer in both
lobes and was T2c.  

now, someone can say, hogwash on the psa.  hey, everyone is entitled to
what they believe.  

~ curtis

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
ron - 15 Feb 2005 19:25 GMT
c palmer wrote...snip...
> it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body
> that produces psa.

Hi Curtis...This doesn't affect the points you were making, but I
thought you'd be interested in knowing that other organs do produce
small amounts of PSA.  The name, "PSA", was given before tests were
available with the sensitivity necessary to detect these small amounts
of PSA.  Some women produce enough PSA that it can be detetcted with
the ultrasensitive PSA test, and, of course, they don't have
prostates...Best wishes and good health, Ron
c palmer - 15 Feb 2005 23:18 GMT
From: oitbso@yahoo.com (ron)
c palmer wrote...snip...
it is a fact that the prostate cell is the ONLY cell in the human body
that produces psa.

Hi Curtis...This doesn't affect the points you were making, but I
thought you'd be interested in knowing that other organs do produce
small amounts of PSA. The name, "PSA", was given before tests were
available with the sensitivity necessary to detect these small amounts
of PSA. Some women produce enough PSA that it can be detetcted with the
ultrasensitive PSA test, and, of course, they don't have
prostates...Best wishes and good health, Ron
====================hi ron - what i was pointing out was in the male body only.

you are right on what you said on the female body.

here's an article with references to what you are saying.

Prostate-Specific Antigen in Female Serum, a Potential New Marker of
Androgen Excess
Dimitrios N. Melegos, He Yu, Mala Ashok, Chun Wang, Frank Stanczyk and
Eleftherios P. Diamandis
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (D.N.M., H.Y., E.P.D.),
Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X5; Department of Clinical
Biochemistry (D.N.M., H.Y., E.P.D.), University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario M5G 1L5, Canada; and Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
(M.A., C.W., F.S.), Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and
Infertility, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Los
Angeles, California 90033
Address correspondence and requests for reprints to: Dr. E. P.
Diamandis, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 600
University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5G 1X5.
   Abstract

 
Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is present at very low concentrations in
female serum, but it can now be measured with highly sensitive
immunoassays. We have found that in female tissues the PSA gene is
regulated by steroid hormones through the action of steroid hormone
receptors. Thus, we examined whether female serum PSA is associated with
hyperandrogenic states. Serum PSA levels were compared between 22
hirsute women with a Ferriman-Gallwey score higher than 8 and 50 women
without hirsutism. The results show that PSA levels were higher in
hirsute women in comparison with controls. In hirsute women, levels of
PSA and 3-androstanediol glucuronide (3-AG), a specific metabolite of
androgen action, showed a significant positive correlation, whereas PSA
and 3-AG showed a significant negative correlation with patient age.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that 3-AG was
a slightly better marker of androgen excess than PSA. We conclude that
female serum PSA may be a new biochemical marker of androgen action in
females.

 
PROSTATE-SPECIFIC antigen (PSA) is a 33-KDa serine protease with
chymotrypsin-like enzymatic activity (1). In males, PSA is produced by
the prostate gland (2), and it is present in prostatic tissue, seminal
plasma, and male serum (3). Small amounts of PSA also can be produced by
the periurethral glands, and therefore, urine contains detectable levels
of PSA (4). PSA concentration in male serum is a valuable tumor marker
for diagnosis and management of prostate cancer (5). PSA production in
the prostate is under the control of steroid hormones. Androgens
up-regulate the expression of the PSA gene through the androgen receptor
(6, 7).
Initially, PSA was believed to be completely absent from all female
tissues and fluids. However, PSA has been detected recently in some
female tissues (including breast, ovarian, and endometrial tissues) and
body fluids (amniotic fluid, milk, and breast cyst fluid) (8). The
presence of PSA in these female tissues seems to be associated closely
with steroid hormone regulation, especially androgens, glucocorticoids,
and progestins (9). This was also demonstrated using a tissue culture
system and the breast carcinoma cell line T-47D (10). Indirect in vivo
evidence was provided by two case reports (11, 12).
Using conventional PSA assays with a detection limit of 0.1–0.01
ng/mL, PSA is detectable in less than 10% of female sera (13), but when
a more sensitive PSA assay is used (detection limit 0.001 ng/mL), more
than 50% of female sera have detectable PSA levels (14). Among women who
have high levels of androgens, relatively high levels of serum PSA
should be expected if PSA production in women is under the regulation of
androgens.
One of the manifestations of androgen excess in women is idiopathic
hirsutism. In most instances, the source of androgen excess in these
women is neither adrenal (e.g. dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate) nor
ovarian (e.g. testosterone) but peripheral. The most important
peripheral sources of androgen production are sexual and nonsexual skin
tissues where testosterone is converted to the potent androgen,
dihydrotestosterone (DHT). The latter androgen is responsible for
androgen action.
Based on the above considerations, we speculated that serum PSA levels
in hirsute females may be high and that the measurement of serum PSA in
these women may have some clinical implications. In this study, we
measured PSA levels in female serum with a highly sensitive PSA assay
and compared the levels between hirsute and apparently healthy women.
Because 3-androstanediol glucuronide (3-AG) is a major metabolite of DHT
and it can be measured easily in serum, we have conducted comparisons
between PSA and 3-AG in serum of hirsute women.

We collected, with informed consent, serum specimens from 22 hirsute
women and 16 nonhirsute women from the same geographical location in
California. The population consisted mainly of Caucasians and Hispanics.
Additionally, we collected another 34 serum samples from healthy blood
donors in Toronto, Canada. The clinical diagnosis of hirsutism was based
on the hirsutism scale of Ferriman and Gallwey, as described elsewhere
(15). A score of 8 or more indicates clinical hirsutism. Control
subjects had a score less than 8. Of the hirsute women, 20 had a score
between 8 and 24 with a mean ± SD of 13 ± 4.8. The score was not
available for two hirsute women.
Other available information pertaining to the hirsute women included: 1)
serum levels of total testosterone, which was measured in 14 patients
(range: 0.12–1.53 ng/mL; mean ± SD, 0.85 ± 0.44 ng/mL); 2)
ovulation, which was available for 21 patients (17 anovulating and 4
ovulating women); and 3) body weight, which was available for 21
patients (11 obese and 10 nonobese women).
PSA and androstanediol glucuronide were measured in serum by previously
described methods (16, 17). A sandwich-type time-resolved
immunofluorometric assay was used to quantify PSA. The lowest detection
limit of the assay is 1 pg/mL, and the coefficient of variation (for
between-run precision), at levels of 2 pg/mL or higher, is less than
16%. Each serum sample was measured in triplicate. The DHT metabolite,
3-AG, was measured by direct RIA using reagents obtained from a
commercial 125I-androstanediol glucuronide RIA kit (Diagnostic Systems
Laboratories, Webster, Texas). This kit was validated extensively in the
laboratory of Dr. F. Stanczyk, Los Angeles, California (17).
The differences in serum PSA and age between cases and controls were
compared with the Wilcoxon test and the ANOVA test. The relationships
between PSA and age or 3-AG were examined with the Spearman rank
correlation coefficient test when untransformed PSA values were used.
The Pearson correlation test was used when logarithmic PSA values were
employed. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was
constructed for both PSA and 3-AG using the cutoff levels at 20%, 50%,
70%, and 90% percentile distributions of their values among all
subjects. The start and end points of the curve were hypothetical, i.e.
assuming the curve starts at 100% specificity and 0% sensitivity and
ends at 0% specificity and 100% sensitivity.

 
Table 1 shows the distributions of age, PSA, and 3-AG among the three
patient groups. The mean ages and median PSA levels between the control
groups 1 and 2 were not significantly different (P = 0.26 for age and P
= 0.28 for PSA), and therefore, the two control groups were combined
together for comparison with the patient group. The mean ages were not
significantly different between patients (29.6 yr) and combined control
groups (30.7 yr) (P = 0.48).

  Table 1. The distributions of PSA, age, and 3-AG in the patients and
controls
 
The distribution of PSA values among all the women studied was
positively skewed, but the 3-AG values were normally distributed with an
almost identical mean and median. The average levels of PSA (median) and
3-AG (mean) were significantly higher in hirsute women than in normal
women (P = 0.001 for PSA, Wilcoxon Rank Sum test; and P = 0.002 for
3-AG, one-way ANOVA).
PSA values were positively correlated with 3-AG values (Fig. 1). PSA and
3-AG values were negatively correlated with patient's age (Table 2, Fig.
2, and data not shown). The regression equation of 3-AG levels (y) vs.
age (x) was: y = -0.22x + 11.6, r = -0.58, P < 0.001.
View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  Figure 1. Correlation between 3-AG and log (PSA) for 32 patients'
sera. The Pearson r = 0.58 (P < 0.001). The regression equation is y 0.17x - 0.20. The values of PSA before logarithmic transformation are in
pg/mL.
 

  Table 2. Correlations among PSA, 3-AG, and patient
 

  Figure 2. Correlation between log (PSA) and age for 72 patients'
sera. The Pearson r = -0.37 (P = 0.001). The regression equation is y -0.040x + 1.57. The values of PSA before logarithmic transformation are
in pg/mL.
 
The distributions of logarithmic PSA and 3-AG between patients and
controls are shown in Figs. 3 and 4. Although patients tended to have
higher PSA and 3-AG than controls, there were still many patients who
had values overlapping with those of controls. The ROC curve was
slightly better for 3-AG compared with that for PSA, but none of the
markers could provide both more than 80% sensitivity and specificity at
any single cutoff point (Fig. 5).

  Figure 3. Distribution of log (PSA) values between patients (dotted
bars) and control subjects (hatched bars). For discussion, see text.
 

  Figure 4. Distribution of 3-AG values between patients (dotted bars)
and control subjects (hatched bars). For discussion, see text.
 

  Figure 5. Receiver operating characteristic curves for PSA () and
3-AG ()at various cutoff points shown in brackets. Units are in pg/mL
for PSA and ng/mL for 3-AG.
 
Based on the limited number of patients who had testosterone data, we
found that serum testosterone levels tended to be positively correlated
with 3-AG (Pearson r of 0.62, P = 0.02) and PSA (Spearman r of 0.47, P 0.09) and were negatively correlated with age (Pearson r of -0.53, P 0.05).
Obese women tended to have a higher hirsutism score than nonobese women
(median scores 16 vs. 10, respectively, P = 0.01). However, using both
Wilcoxon rank sum testing and one-way ANOVA, we could not find any
significant associations between either obesity or ovulation and age,
3-AG, PSA, or testosterone (data not shown).

 
PSA was thought to be absent from female tissues until our recent
finding of its presence in female breast tissue. Our studies have
demonstrated that the female breast is one of the female tissues that is
capable of producing PSA (9, 11). Tissue culture experiments indicate
that the production of PSA by steroid hormone receptor-positive breast
cancer cells is under the control of steroid hormones, including
androgens and progestins (10). Oral contraceptives increase PSA
production in breast tissue (11). Amniotic fluid and milk contain
significant amounts of PSA, and the levels of PSA in these fluids change
with gestational age or postdelivery time (18, 19). Serum PSA levels are
significantly higher in pregnant women in comparison with nonpregnant
women (18). Taken together, these data suggest that PSA is expressed in
breast and possibly other female tissues and that PSA expression is
under the regulation of steroid hormones, especially androgens and
progestins. The major difference in PSA expression between men and women
is that the breasts express relatively low levels compared with the
levels of male prostate.
Because of the relationship between PSA production and androgen
regulation, we hypothesized that PSA may be a marker of androgen action
in women. Women with higher levels of androgen may have higher levels of
PSA compared with women with normal levels of androgen. Hirsutism
represents a state of androgen excess in women. In this study, we report
significantly elevated serum PSA levels in hirsute women compared with
normal women.
The source of androgen excess in patients with idiopathic hirsutism is
considered to be increased peripheral conversion of androstanediol and
testosterone to DHT via the pivotal enzyme, 5-reductase. Although DHT is
the most potent endogenous androgen, it is considered to be a poor
circulating marker of androgenicity. Instead, the conjugated metabolite
of DHT, namely 3-AG, is considered to be an excellent serum marker of
5-reductase activity and peripheral androgen action and of the clinical
manifestations of hirsutism (20). For these reasons, we chose 3-AG as a
serum marker for determining the relationship of peripheral
hyperandrogenism to circulating PSA levels.
Comparison of serum PSA with 3-AG for the diagnosis of hirsutism showed
that PSA did not provide better sensitivity and specificity than did
3-AG. The two markers correlate significantly with each other. An
inverse correlation between age and PSA or 3-AG was observed in these
women. We do not as yet know which female tissue produces and releases
PSA into the circulation in hirsute women. The most likely candidate is
the female breast because this tissue has steroid hormone receptors and
is capable of producing high levels of PSA, especially after steroid
hormone stimulation (11). Nevertheless, our data show that only a
relatively small proportion of patients with hirsutism produces more
than 10 pg/mL PSA (Fig. 3).
In summary, we found that serum PSA levels were increased significantly
in women with hirsutism. PSA levels in female serum were positively
correlated with serum 3-AG and were inversely correlated with patient
age. Therefore, PSA in serum can now be regarded as another biochemical
marker of androgen action in female peripheral tissues.
Received June 11, 1996.
Revised September 18, 1996.
Revised November 8, 1996.
Accepted November 12, 1996.

McCormack RT, Rittenhouse HG, Finlay JA, et al. 1995 Molecular forms of
prostate specific antigen and the human kallikrein gene family: a new
era. Urology. 45:729–744.[CrossRef][Medline]  
Wang MC, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chu TM. 1979 Purification of human
prostate-specific antigen. Invest Urol. 17:159–163.[Medline]  
Papsidero LD, Wang MC, Valenzuela LA, Murphy GP, Chue TM. 1980 A
prostate antigen in sera of prostatic cancer patients. Cancer Res.
40:2428–2432.[Abstract]  
Iwakiri J, Granbois K, Wehner N, Graves HC, Stamey T. 1993 An analysis
of urinary prostate specific antigen before and after radical
prostatectomy: evidence for secretion of prostate specific antigen by
the periurethral glands. J Urol. 149:783–786.[Medline]  
Catalona WJ, Smith DS, Ratliff TL, et al. 1991 Measurement of prostate
specific antigen in serum as a screening test for prostate cancer. N
Engl J Med. 324;1156–1161.  
Luke MC, Coffey DS. 1994 Human androgen receptor binding to the androgen
response element of prostate specific antigen. J Androl.
15:41–51.[Abstract/Free Full Text]  
Young CY-F, Montgomery BT, Andrews PE, Qiu S, Bilhartz DL, Tindall DJ.
1991 Hormonal regulation of prostate specific antigen messenger RNA in
human prostatic adenocarcinoma cell line LNCap. Cancer Res.
51:3748–3752.  
Diamandis EP, Yu H. 1995 New biological functions of prostate specific
antigen? J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 80:1515–1517.[Medline]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP, Sutherland DJA. 1994 Immunoreactive prostate
specific antigen levels in female and male breast tumors and its
association with steroid hormone receptors and patient age. Clin
Biochem. 27:75–79.[CrossRef][Medline]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP, Zarghami N, Grass L. 1994 Induction of prostate
specific antigen production by steroids and tamoxifen in breast cancer
cell lines. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 32:291–300.[Medline]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP, Monne M, Croce CM. 1995 Oral contraceptive-induced
expression of prostate specific antigen in the female breast. J Biol
Chem. 270:6615–6618.[Abstract/Free Full Text]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP, Levesque M, Asa S, Monne M, Croce CM. 1995
Expression of the prostate-specific antigen gene by a primary ovarian
carcinoma. Cancer Res. 55:1603–1606.[Abstract]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP. 1995 Measurement of serum prostate specific antigen
levels in females and in prostatectomized males with an ultrasensitive
immunoassay technique. J Urol. 153:1004–1008.[Medline]  
Diamandis EP, Yu H, Melegos DN. 1996 Ultrasensitive prostate specific
antigen assays and their clinical application. Clin Chem.
42:853–857.[Free Full Text]  
Hatch R, Rosenfield RL, Kiru MH, Tredway D. 1981 Hirsutism:
implications, etiology, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol.
140:815–830.[Medline]  
Ferguson RA, Yu H, Kalyvas M, Zammit S, Diamandis EP. 1996
Ultrasensitive detection of prostate specific antigen by a new time
resolved immunofluorometric assay and the Immulite
immunochemiluminescent third generation assay: potential applications in
prostate and breast cancers. Clin Chem. 42:675–684.[Abstract/Free
Full Text]  
Norang R, Tran T, Savjani G. 1994 Solid phase radioimmunoassay kit for
the quantitative measurement of androstanediol glucuronide in
unextracted serum or plasma. Clin Chem. 40:1132 (Abstract).  
Melegos DN, Yu H, Allen LC, Diamandis EP. 1996 Prostate specific antigen
in amniotic fluid of normal and abnormal pregnancies. Clin Biochem.
29:555–562.[CrossRef][Medline]  
Yu H, Diamandis EP. 1995 Prostate specific antigen in milk of lactating
women. Clin Chem. 41:54–58.[Abstract/Free Full Text]  
Horton R, Lobo R. 1986 Peripheral androgen metabolism and the role of
androstanediol glucuronide. In: Horton R, Lobo RA, eds. Clinics in
endocrinology and metabolism, Vol 15. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;
293–306.
This article has been cited by other articles:
H. Aksoy, F. Akcay, Z. Umudum, A. K. Yildirim, and R. Memisogullari
Changes of PSA Concentrations in Serum and Saliva of Healthy Women
during the Menstrual Cycle
Ann. Clin. Lab. Sci., January 1, 2002; 32(1): 31 - 36.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

A. SULLI, C. PIZZORNI, R. SCOTTO-BUSATO, S. ACCARDO, and M. CUTOLO
Androgenizing Effects of Cyclosporin A in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., June 22, 1999; 876(1): 391 - 396.
[Full Text]

C. V. Obiezu, A. Scorilas, A. Magklara, M. H. Thornton, C. Y. Wang, F.
Z. Stanczyk, and E. P. Diamandis
Prostate-Specific Antigen and Human Glandular Kallikrein 2 Are Markedly
Elevated in Urine of Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., April 1, 2001; 86(4): 1558 - 1561.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

H. F. Escobar-Morreale, S. Ávila, and J. Sancho
Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen Concentrations Are Not Useful for
Monitoring the Treatment of Hirsutism with Oral Contraceptive Pills
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 2000; 85(7): 2488 - 2492.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

C. Negri, F. Tosi, R. Dorizzi, A. Fortunato, G. G. Spiazzi, M. Muggeo,
R. Castello, and P. Moghetti
Antiandrogen Drugs Lower Serum Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) Levels in
Hirsute Subjects: Evidence That Serum PSA Is a Marker of Androgen Action
in Women
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., January 1, 2000; 85(1): 81 - 84.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

V. H. H. Goh
Breast Tissues in Transsexual Women-A Nonprostatic Source of Androgen
Up-Regulated Production of Prostate-Specific Antigen
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., September 1, 1999; 84(9): 3313 - 3315.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

H. F. Escobar-Morreale, J. Serrano-Gotarredona, S. Avila, J.
Villar-Palasí, C. Varela, and J. Sancho
The Increased Circulating Prostate-Specific Antigen Concentrations in
Women with Hirsutism Do Not Respond to Acute Changes in Adrenal or
Ovarian Function
J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., July 1, 1998; 83(7): 2580 - 2584.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

C. López-Otín and E. P. Diamandis
Breast and Prostate Cancer: An Analysis of Common Epidemiological,
Genetic, and Biochemical Features
Endocr. Rev., August 1, 1998; 19(4): 365 - 396.
[Abstract] [Full Text]

C. V. Obiezu, E. J. Giltay, A. Magklara, A. Scorilas, L. J.G. Gooren, H.
Yu, D. J.C. Howarth, and E. P. Diamandis
Serum and Urinary Prostate-specific Antigen and Urinary Human Glandular
Kallikrein Concentrations Are Significantly Increased after Testosterone
Administration in Female-to-Male Transsexuals
Clin. Chem., June 1, 2000; 46(6): 859 - 862.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

D. N. Melegos and E. P. Diamandis
Is Prostate-Specific Antigen Present in Female Serum?
Clin. Chem., March 1, 1998; 44(3): 691 - 692.
[Full Text] [PDF]

G. M. Lambert-Messerlian, J. A. Canick, D. N. Melegos, and E. P.
Diamandis
Increased concentrations of prostate-specific antigen in maternal serum
from pregnancies affected by fetal Down syndrome
Clin. Chem., February 1, 1998; 44(2): 205 - 208.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

knowledge is power - growing old is mandatory - growing wise is optional    
"Many more men die with prostate cancer than of it. Growing old is
invariably fatal. Prostate cancer is only sometimes so."
http://community.webtv.net/PALMER_ENT/doc
ron - 16 Feb 2005 00:16 GMT
c palmer wrote...snip...
> hi ron - what i was pointing out was in the male body only.

Curtis...Even the male body can produce small amounts of PSA outside
the prostate...Ron

Int J Cancer. 2005 Jan 10;113(2):290-7. Related Articles, Links

Expression of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and human glandular
kallikrein 2 (hK2) in ileum and other extraprostatic tissues.

Olsson AY, Bjartell A, Lilja H, Lundwall A.

Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University, University Hospital
UMAS, S-205 02 Malmo, Sweden. Yvonne.Olsson@klkemi.mas.lu.se

Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a widely used marker for prostate
cancer. In the literature, there are reports of nonprostatic expression
of PSA that potentially can affect early diagnosis. However, the
results are scattered and inconclusive, which motivated us to conduct a
more comprehensive study of the tissue distribution of PSA and the
closely related protein human glandular kallikrein 2 (hK2). RT-PCR, in
situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry were used to detect
expression of both PSA and hK2 in secretory epithelial cells of
trachea, thyroid gland, mammary gland, salivary gland, jejunum, ileum,
epididymis, seminal vesicle and urethra, as well as in Leydig cells,
pancreatic exocrine glands and epidermis. Immunometric measurements
revealed that the concentration of PSA in nonprostatic tissues
represents less than 1% of the amount in normal prostate. Pronounced
expression of PSA was detected in the Paneth cells in ileum, which
prompted us to compare functional parameters of PSA in ileum and
prostate. We found that in homogenates from these 2 tissues, PSA
manifested equivalent amidolytic activity and capacity to form
complexes with protease inhibitors in blood in vitro. Thus, PSA
released from sources other than the prostate may add to the plasma
pool of this protein, but given the lower levels detected from those
sites, it is unlikely that nonprostatic PSA normally can interfere with
the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Nevertheless, this risk should not be
neglected as it may be of clinical significance under certain
circumstances.
Ken - 17 Feb 2005 21:45 GMT
PSA saved my life... and maybe not. Nine years ago, after I ignored a
slowly-rising PSA for several years, it hit 6.0, and my doctor insisted
I get a biopsy. It was positive, and I had the surgery a couple months
later. Pathology reported malignant tumors at the capsule wall. My PSA
stayed below 1.0 for a few years. That's the good news.

Five years later, my PSA was 4.0. I got a 90-day shot of Lupron and
90-day supply of Casodex. A month later, my PSA was 0.3, but the side
effects were so debilitating, I stopped the Casodex after 30 days.

About 18 months ago, my PSA was back up to 7 something. I went to
Dana-Farber for a consult, because I had read in an US-TOO newsletter
that they were doing a Celebrex trial to lower PSA. I couldn't get into
the study because of my prior medications. They recommended hormone
therapy again.

My PSA rose to 9.9, and my doctor agreed to put me on Celebrex, since I
had arthritis anyway. Also, I started taking green tea and a lot of
supplements. A few months later, I went to M.D. Anderson as a
last-resort consult. They recommended the same thing as everyone else,
the dreaded hormone therapy. While I was there, I got a PSA test. A
week later, they faxed me the results... 6.3. A few days later, I met
with my urologist who said 6.3 was too far from 9.9 to be believable.
He scheduled me for radiation to help reduce gynaecomastia from the
hormone therapy I would be starting.

A month later, I was in the radiologist's office, and I brought up that
strange 6.3 PSA. He agreed with my urologist that it couldn't be right.
I told him that since I was at the hospital, it wouldn't hurt to get
one last PSA before giving up. He agreed, and rescheduled the
radiation. When I got home and played back my messages, I heard him
yell, "IT'S FIVE POINT ONE THREE!!!"

So... my PSA went from 9.9 in April to 5.13 in July. The ONLY
medication I was taking was Celebrex, and a lot of supplements!

Now, seven months later, it's up again, leveling at 8.8 to 9.3. Because
of the serious potential risks of Celebrex, I stopped it a couple days
ago. Since I started the Celebrex and supplements at about the same
time, we don't really know if it had any affect. After a month without
Celebrex, we'll see what the next PSA looks like.

Meanwhile... over the past five years, I have had three bone scans
(most recently, last week), two CT scans, an MRI and five or six chest
X-rays. No cancer has EVER been detected, and I feel fine. Is the PSA
the be-all and end-all of cancer detetection? If the PSA continues to
hold at 9, or slowly climbs, is it worth the horrors of hormone therapy
if it's the only indicator?
ron - 17 Feb 2005 23:10 GMT
Ken wrote...snip...
> So... my PSA went from 9.9 in April to 5.13 in July. The ONLY
> medication I was taking was Celebrex, and a lot of supplements!

Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth?

> Meanwhile... over the past five years, I have had three bone scans
> (most recently, last week), two CT scans, an MRI and five or six chest
> X-rays. No cancer has EVER been detected, and I feel fine. Is the PSA
> the be-all and end-all of cancer detetection? If the PSA continues to
> hold at 9, or slowly climbs, is it worth the horrors of hormone therapy
> if it's the only indicator?

These tests don't typically show "hot-spots" until the PSA is up in the
double-digit range.

It sounds long you have a lot of post-surgery PSA data.  If you drop
out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you calculate a PSA
doubling time?

Was the MRI endorectal?  If so, was any residual prostate noticed?

How old are you and what was your clinical / pathological staging?
...best wishes and good health, Ron
Ken - 21 Feb 2005 21:07 GMT
> Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth?

Nope. So far, so good in the hair department.

> If you drop out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you
> calculate a PSA doubling time?

How do I determine which readings were affected?
My PSA after Lupron+Casodex was 0.3, on 4/29/02. On 1/17/03 it was 5.2
and climbed to a high of 9.9 by 4/12/04. Then it dropped down to 5.17
on 7/6/04 and has stayed between 8.3 and 9.2 (8.8 most recently) since
9/2/04.

> Was the MRI endorectal?  If so, was any residual prostate noticed?

No. They said no prostate was visible, but the "prostate bed" is there.

> How old are you and what was your clinical / pathological staging?

I was 62 two months ago. When I had the surgery, almost exactly nine
years ago, my PSA was 12 and a Gleason 7.

I haven't seen any recent data about Celebrex relative to cancer. Have
you? Here's the intro of the article that got me interested:

"April 24, 2003
Researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
have, for the first time, identified the molecular pathway by which a
commonly prescribed arthritis medication inhibits the growth of cancer.

Before this study, scientists had linked use of celecoxib capsules
(commonly known as Celebrex) to prevention of cancer, but the way in
which the medication acted in cancer cells was unknown.

Now, investigators have found that celecoxib capsules stop a key
transcription factor known as Sp1 from turning on multiple genes in
cancer cells known to be associated with cancer growth. One of those
genes triggers production of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF),
the predominant angiogenic factor that leads blood vessels to grow to
feed tumors.

The findings were published in the Proceedings for the 2003 Annual
Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.

"Our results provide a novel molecular mechanism for the antitumor
activity of celecoxib," said Keping Xie, MD, PhD, assistant professor
in the department of gastrointestinal medical oncology.

Xie added that although the study was conducted in models of pancreatic
cancer, the results likely describe how celecoxib interferes with
development of a number of common cancers that all involve the Sp1/VEGF
pathway."
ron - 21 Feb 2005 22:47 GMT
> > Any hormonal supplements or Propecia for hair regrowth?
>
> Nope. So far, so good in the hair department.

So that's not affecting the PSA

> > If you drop out the points affected by hormone therapy, can you
> > calculate a PSA doubling time?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> on 7/6/04 and has stayed between 8.3 and 9.2 (8.8 most recently) since
> 9/2/04.

Over this relatively short time it might be hard to determine when the
HT stopped affecting the PSA.  It seems to be moving around a lot
making doubling time calculation problematical.

> > Was the MRI endorectal?  If so, was any residual prostate noticed?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> I was 62 two months ago. When I had the surgery, almost exactly nine
> years ago, my PSA was 12 and a Gleason 7.

So with your stats and relatively young age you can't just "wait it
out."

> I haven't seen any recent data about Celebrex relative to cancer. Have
> you? Here's the intro of the article that got me interested:

For men who have systemic disease and practice intermittent hormonal
therapy, it seems to slow the PSA rise when they come off of hormone
therapy.

Have you had your PAP (Prostatic Acid Phosphatase) measured to see if
the disease is systemic?  If it is then hormones and / or mild chemo
are the only mainstream treatments that I am aware of.  Maybe it's time
to start working with a prostate cancer oncologist...Best wishes and
good health, Ron

> "April 24, 2003
> Researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> development of a number of common cancers that all involve the Sp1/VEGF
> pathway."
Stephen Jordan - 18 Feb 2005 00:47 GMT
On February 17, Ken wrote, in pertinent part:

> .............................................................. Because
> of the serious potential risks of Celebrex, I stopped it a couple days
> ago. Since I started the Celebrex and supplements at about the same
> time, we don't really know if it had any affect. After a month without
> Celebrex, we'll see what the next PSA looks like.

The Celebrex risk, if it really exists and is not an artifact of
statistical flimflam, begins at very high doses, >400 mg. There is "no
apparent effect with doses equal to or less than 200 mg." See:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7661734

Let's not fall victim to the Chicken Little Syndrome.

Regards,

Steve J
D M R Taplin - 25 Feb 2005 15:54 GMT
My very limited patient-based experience is that PSA is one of the best
early indicators of PCa --- along with DRE and Biopsy/Glesson --- and at
4.5ng/ml one should explore treatment. In February 2003 I went to
www.rcog.com in Atlanta USA --- with PSA of 6.1ng/ml; Volume 25ml; Gleeson
6; Stage T1c --- with what I think are good results via ProstRcision -- and
no side effects. Key is to catch early and PSA is best measure of this ---
with new work indicating nano-studies can detect even earlier. This is just
my own experience and everyone must investigate themselves for their own
situation to be sure. I did 3-6 months work to arrive at my own decision.

Minerva

> News over the last year has basically said that a PSA is about as accurate
> as a finger up the bum in order to test for prostate cancer. Eg, with a
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Thanks.
 
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.