HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

NOT TRUE FOR ME

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 9/21/2010 3:37 PM (GMT 0)
Yesterday I read an article in the 16 Sept Science Daily (Sloan Kettering - Damico cited) that stated if a man at age 60 has a PSA of 2+ he should have periodic rechecks.  If he has a PSA of less than 1.0 at age 60, he has a 0.2 % chance of ever developing Pca and if he does, it would be not aggressive. Really,  - my PSA at age 61 was 0.8 and 6.4 at age 67 with Gleason 9. It doesn't make me feel good to know I'm in the 0.2% who developed Pca - maybe I should buy a lottery ticket this week since I am continually beating the odds!!!   The Old Sailor 
Posted 9/21/2010 3:51 PM (GMT 0)
i hear you, sailor. i too, have that knack of always being on the micro-tiny-wee percentage bad side of things. when is your first post-SRT PSA reading going to be done? hopefully you will be on the good side of the SRT percentages.

David in SC
Posted 9/21/2010 4:00 PM (GMT 0)
I agree Sailor, many of these "studies" are hard to believe and a year or two later turn out to be WRONG when somebody takes the time to do a scientifically controlled study..

VERY few men have a PSA of less than 1.0 at age 60...I suspect the 0.2% is a misprint. probably 2%. But even that figure is questionable since they say NOTHING about the group they studied! You see this all the time...
Posted 9/21/2010 4:13 PM (GMT 0)
Indeed, Old Sailor, it appears you should get a lottery ticket.

I'm curious, purely from an academic perspective, and wonder if you would also mind sharing what PSA results you might have had prior to your 0.8 ng/mL result at age 61. You're right that less than 1 ng/mL for a man at age 60 is relatively uncommon, and so, too, is the rise from 0.8 to 6.4 within a few years. I totally understand that "it's academic" at this point, but am interested in learning more experiences about the natural history of PC & PSA.

What were your PSA results from your 50's?  Thanks in advance for sharing...

Post Edited (Casey59) : 9/21/2010 10:49:22 AM (GMT-6)

Posted 9/21/2010 4:31 PM (GMT 0)
PCa is a "slow growing cancer" says most of the world - except for those of us who have had the misfortune to have it grow aggressive within a short period of time blindsiding us completly!
Posted 9/21/2010 4:51 PM (GMT 0)
Reminds me of when I had a tumor that was only a 0.001% probability and they told me there was a 95% chance of a cure with the recommended treatment. Those odds didn't look that great when contrasted with the long odds I beat to be there in the first place.
Posted 9/21/2010 6:33 PM (GMT 0)

Casey, here are my psa: age 57-.71, 58-.50, 59-.49, 60-.81, 61-0.80, 62-1.10, 63-1.28, 63-1.39, 64-1.76, 65-2.43. 66-3.19 & 5.17 (10 core biopsy, all negative) then at age 67 saturation biopsy (5 of 28 cancer)

TTSC - This one drives me crazy - "If your going to have cancer, prostate is the one to have."  Yea, right OK, I am so lucky! 

David (my hero) my first post SRT was 19 days at 0.65 but Rad Onc said meant nothing (was part of other tests) but on 9/16 (3 months) it was 0.47 (was 0.30 at start of SRT).  Rad Onc not pleased but said the PSA at 6-8 months is best predictor if SRT working. We'll see.  I sincerely wish you the best on your upcoming surgery, say a little prayer to St. Padre Pio.

Old Sailor

   

Posted 9/21/2010 10:19 PM (GMT 0)
Yea, and it's an old mans cancer to.  Yea,  I had it at 35 I am sure.  My PSA was 2.4 when I was 38.  I'm one of those 1 in 10000 under the age of 50 to get it and 1 in 30000 under the age of 40 I am sure.  If I am still alive I will make my son start testing PSA regularlly at 25 and get a base line at 20.  He's 4 now and I am thinking of having him checked when he is 10.  I am completely serious.
Posted 9/21/2010 10:33 PM (GMT 0)
old sailor,

how could you know that i am a devoted fan of padre pio? that's amazing in iteself.

when i had porocarconima in the scalp years ago, before it moved into my throat, i am still considered one of only six known cases, drum roll, in the entire world. how does one end up with somethat that rare? my med onco at the time said, the odds were like someone winning the powerball 3 weeks in a row.

yes, its the good cancer, PC. yeah, i am one of the lucky ones too. its been a great trip so far (not!). Just one of those goofy things that people outside of world say, mostly to make themeselves feel better I suppose.

hopefully your psa will continue to drop to give you a little sense of security there, i hope so for your sake

david in sc
Posted 9/21/2010 10:35 PM (GMT 0)
I bet the PSA goes up dramatically when a boy hits puberty. Better to wait a few years.
Posted 9/21/2010 10:48 PM (GMT 0)
It's also why I don't believe the B. S. line about me being low risk. Maybe if I were 67 and not 44. I have a high chance of death from this in 15-20 years.
Posted 9/21/2010 10:54 PM (GMT 0)
chris, being that you were only 42 when dx, i can understand your apprehension about the 15-20 year outlook, it is all relative when you start out in this journey. hopefuly, your upcoming psa will be another zero, and you can clock off another good year. my uro said i was one of his youngest patients when my pc dx came at 56, so i can only imagine being your age with the news. good luck ahead.

david in sc
Posted 9/21/2010 11:31 PM (GMT 0)

Fairwind said...
I agree Sailor, many of these "studies" are hard to believe and a year or two later turn out to be WRONG when somebody takes the time to do a scientifically controlled study..

VERY few men have a PSA of less than 1.0 at age 60...I suspect the 0.2% is a misprint. probably 2%. But even that figure is questionable since they say NOTHING about the group they studied! You see this all the time...

Some time after my op I suggested to my younger brother by 14 months (60 at the time and he is a bit of a "jack the lad" to boot) he should have the PSA test. I was gobsmacked when he came in at 0.4ng/mL

Post Edited (BillyMac) : 9/21/2010 5:36:50 PM (GMT-6)

Posted 9/21/2010 11:34 PM (GMT 0)

ChrisR said...
It's also why I don't believe the B. S. line about me being low risk. Maybe if I were 67 and not 44. I have a high chance of death from this in 15-20 years.

Gee Chris ....... we've got to assume there's going to be some progress in the battle against cancer over the next 20 years. tongue
Bill
Posted 9/22/2010 12:58 AM (GMT 0)
There hadn't been in the last 40
Posted 9/22/2010 1:34 AM (GMT 0)
Chris, since you are a Gleason 6, thats a whole different world than 7-10 according to my Docs at Mayo.   I really think that a Gleason 6 can be completely cured but a 4+3, and 8-10 have a significant chance of recurrence.  Friend of mine had a Gleason 6 19 years ago at age 50, still going strong without recurrence at age 69.  I have sons 42 & 40 and keep hammering them to get a PSA for a baseline.    Take care, you're going to be fine because the Pca was caught very, very early.     The Old Sailor

Posted 9/22/2010 6:26 PM (GMT 0)
Well, Old Sailor, if one were to listen to the (healthy) health care pundits, a 0.2% risk is negligible and you should have been written off as 'acceptable losses'. And yet, in this era of Six-Sigma, etc., a 0.2% risk (if that's even true) is barely over 4 sigma.

I know I'm preaching to the choir and have opined on this subject several times here (and I guess this is one more time), Emphasis in our health care system needs to focus not on rationing of care and 'acceptable risk', but on strong diagnostics that allow us to sensibly and humanely reduce overtreatment. In this case by tests to allow us to differentiate slow growing from fast growing.

I'm glad you made it under the wire into the treated pool.
Posted 9/22/2010 7:30 PM (GMT 0)
Thanks oldsailor. I'm having my 2 year psa test next month and I am having anxiety. I know a lot of people would trade me spots and I am very lucky and don't have any room to complain. But in perspective it still is cancer and still gets to you sometime. Besides I am one of those people who "believes it when I see it" so stats. Are sometimes hard to believe.
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply