PSA Tomorrow... Nervous

Kark60, Hang in there.... Hopefully things will work in your favor and the numbers will drop or stabilize... I was wondering why the more sensitive test was not performed after the level was 0.1... that could be anywhere from 0.07 thru .14. For BCR, another metric used is 3 consecutive rises at the lower levels around .10 and .20. It would have been a question I would have asked my Uro... As you can see in my signature, I was really tracking it when it hit the .10 range.

pasayten

Kark60 -
- wishing you all the best with the PSA level you want to be at - <0.1 !!!

-with actors, before a performance you say "break a leg" - to avoid jinxing it..
- for puppeteers - "break a string" ...
- have to come up with an Anti-Anxiety phrase for best wishes for PSA testing .... hmmmmmmm

-no disrespect intended re: your nervousness over the PSA test - I refer it to as being "Damocles' Sword" ... my next testing is in October - eeek!

sincere hugs
BRONSON

Corvette-

When the result came back at .1 in April, I asked the nurse about the sensitivity of the test. She told me it was the "two digit" (diagnostic not screening) test and (I quote her), "If it was .13 I would be able to see it was .13." I asked her to send me the original lab report and it looked like the lab typed the result on a report sheet and probably did not include the last 0, making the result 0.10. The nurse also told me the test does not round-off. So... I am confident the result was 0.10 and the appropriate test was done. However, it is odd that all of the previous results were 0.0 with no second digit, unless the lab reporting protocol is to report below .1 as 0.0. Depending on the coming result, I might try to investigate this further, at least trying to understand how the 0.0 was determined. Frustrating...

Thanks for asking...

kark,

i agree with pasay's view on this one. the threshold of .2 is used by some, but the more current thinking is 3 consecutive rises above .10 equals recurrance. I had SRT before it ever hit the .2 mark, because of the PSA velocity that was going on even with the lower readings. In your case, I would want to know the numbers accurately to .xx so that any increases, however small, could be tracked. just my thoughts.

david in sc

Always get to see the paperwork or get a copy of psa tests, seeing the number and proving what is on paper, less chance for cheap talk, b.s., errors. The three consecutive rises thing, is probably based upon 3 rises, and 3 months apart for these psa tests...that is what we usually see mentioned in books.

Karl,
When I get my PSA results they come directly from the lab. The report shows the PSA to two decimal places. There is no "rounding".

It also states the results next to the equipment used:

PSA eff. 06-2006 0.03 ng.ml performed by Siemens Centaur direct chemiluminometrice
PSA 9eff. 4-2010 <0.01 ng.ml performed by Roche Cobas 601 electochemiluminescence ECLIA
The report includes: who requested the test - my Uro, the location of the testing -Strong Memorial Hospital, Univ. of Rochester Medical Center, the date and time, and the order number to track who ran the tests. Finally it includes the people receiving the results - My Uro, my GP and me.

I consider that the minimum for a complete lab report. It is a good example of how they all should be done - except for those lucky guys who are starting to get three decimal place results.

If you or anyone else would like a copy to have as an example to show your Uro, I would gladly scan it and send to you (with my name and account info covered of course.)

Send me an email.

Good luck to you. May your result be <0.04.
Jeff