changed to Quest from Labcorp

I guess if I were you I would bite the bullet and get it done at LabCorp and then compare the results...
All the best.
Samster

Just to demonstrate how different lab methods can produce different results.... On March 25 I had a result from my primary care doctor with a 5.8 ng/ml with a Siemens Chemiluminescent method. On April 3 the Urologist office drew blood for a sample that yielded a score of 8.89 ng/ml from their own lab (not sure what method. Just to check the test, I asked for them (Urologist) to repeat the test on April 17 - the result was 8.5 ng/ml

Huge differences between the first and second tests and I am assuming different test methods

I wish I had seen this thread earlier.

I accidentally went to Quest because of my GP. Ask for their ultrasensitive PSA which came back <0.1. I was expecting at least two decimal places, i.e. <0.03 or 0.06 etc.

Dr. Turner-Lam-Scholz tell me to redraw at Labcorp. Stay tuned.

===========================

Age 64 in 2015
12/02 PSA 2.9 age 51
9/03 BX/DX, Gleason 6, 4 of 12 cores
9/03 Brachytherapy
5/08 PSA nadir 1.1
12/08 PSA 1.8
2/09 BX/DX, Gleason 8, 1 of 12 cores
6/09 Hyperthermic Radiation, Hormone (short term), IMRT (10 fractions) spring 2009
10/09 PSA nadir < 0.1 10/09 through 01/12
4/12 PSA 0.2
3/14 PSA 2.9
5/14 C11 Acetate PT/CT, found 2.0 cm lymph node
5/14 Lupron/Casodex (9 months)
8/14 nadir <0.01
2/15 SBRT to node, at UCSD
3/15 PSA 0.02,T=0
6/15 PSA<0.015,T=105 (yippee!)

I used Quest once and referred to test menu. Got "Post-prostatectomy" PSA test that was done out of state at that time. That was their ultrasensitive test.

@Cicero, just an FYI, I always confirm with the person at quest drawing the blood, that she is doing the "ultr sensitive post prostatectomy " PSA and I quote the lab code, which I don't remember but you can google and look it up on the quest website. My results have been coming back at "<.02"

(Not yo jinx myself)
So ask specifically for that test and confirm with the person doing he blood draw

Hi Rigby,
I just had a PSA go from 0.0 to 0.1 with Lab Corp and my Urologist told me to go back for another analysis to double check. However, he also told me that he has had his patients using Quest, but in the past month he has had a bunch of them suddenly showing a 0.1 value. On duplication at another lab the values were 0.0, so he notified Quest about the issue and told his patients to switch to either Lab Corp or the hospital.
Apparently there was an issue with the Quest data, but he didn't know what it was or get any info from the lab.

Crazy!
I was thinking of switching to QUEST as it appears that my new BCBS MediCare Advantage Plan is making it cheaper (maybe free) to go with Quest.

Now, I'm thinking maybe not. So, anyway, I continued with my usual local hospital lab for a bunch of lab tests 10 days ago. I'll see how BCBS does, financially.

It may be worth just spending a few hundred a year and using the same lab (I do a large number of tests along with the PSA due to the fact that I am on HT).

Mel

81:

Do you post on that alt.support group?

Mel

Is this a recent development, and does it apply to both PSA and uPSA.
My tests have all come back <.02 from Quest, last one was three months ago,
Not sure what to do now.

I had Quest, inadvertently do both uPSA and PSA simultaneously.

uPSA ...................
Lab Results
PSA (FREE AND TOTAL)

Description Result Flags

% FREE PSA UNABLE TO CALCULATE
FREE PSA <0.1 N
TOTAL PSA <0.1 N

PSA was performed using the Beckman Coulter
Immunoassay method. Values obtained from different
assay methods cannot be used interchangeably. PSA
levels, regardless of value, should not be interpreted
as absolute evidence of the presence or absence of
disease.

PSA.................

PSA, TOTAL

Description Result Flags
PSA, TOTAL 0.1 N

PSA, TOTAL:
This test was performed using the Siemens
chemiluminescent method. Values obtained from
different assay methods cannot be used
interchangeably. PSA levels, regardless of
value, should not be interpreted as absolute
evidence of the presence or absence of disease
</pre>
------------------------------------------------------------

So the assay method matters. My MO said to just go to Labcorp.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Age 64 in 2015
12/02 PSA 2.9 age 51
9/03 BX/DX, Gleason 6, 4 of 12 cores
9/03 Low dose brachytherapy
5/08 PSA nadir 1.1
12/08 PSA 1.8
2/09 BX/DX, Gleason 8, 1 of 12 cores
6/09 Hyperthermic Radiation, Hormone (short term), IMRT (10 fractions) spring 2009
10/09 PSA nadir < 0.1 10/09 through 01/12
4/12 PSA 0.2
3/14 PSA 2.9
5/14 C11 Acetate PT/CT, found 2.0 cm lymph node
5/14 Lupron/Casodex (9 months)
8/14 nadir <0.01
2/15 SBRT to node, at UCSD
3/15 PSA 0.02,T=0
6/15 PSA<0.015,T=105
9/15 PSA<0.1,T=278 Quest Lab[code]

My uPSA result has always said "PSA was performed using the Beckman Coulter Immunoassay method."

So i guess they havent changed anything. Very puzzling, and concerning.

It seems like we still haven't heard the other shoe drop yet on this <0.1 versus 0.1 test result question, for tests done at Quest Diagnostics.

So, does "losing" the "less than" sign really represent an actual increase in one's PSA test result, or is it just an idiosyncrasy of the test machine doing the testing, and means nothing as far as a genuine increase in PSA goes?

Here is but one more thought on the subject, something that occurred to me, a thought that may lend some more support to the notion that the "loss" is only the result of something the machine is doing, and means nothing more than that.

It involves a bit of mathematical reasoning, which is not my strong suit, so I invite any mathematicians (compiler, are you there?) and/or any of you engineers to weigh in and point out my error if I'm wrong, but on the surface of it, I believe my argument below makes a point.

Here goes. As far as I have been able to tell, all of these PSA testing machines report results at least to the hundredths place, such as .67, 1.08, 5.76. etc., that is, at least two numbers to the right of the decimal point. So, when a client is tested, and a genuine increase in his PSA from a previous recorded value has been detected by the machine, it can be reported in the form, for example, of

1.26-to-1.45 2.08-to-2.34 .56-to-.89 .77-to-1.03

It would also seem likely that the numbers that the machine gets from testing and it then reports will be very randomly occurring, as the above examples show, since the level of PSA within any individual being tested is subject to so many different variables.

But if the reported increase in PSA among a good number of different individuals is valid and is routinely showing up as, say for example:

.05-to-0.1 .08-to-0.1 .03-to-0.1 .06-to-0.1

isn't it rather peculiar that an increase to a value of 0.1 would be showing up so many times in so many different tests?

Also, as newlylimp reported in one of his posts in the "changed from Quest to Labcorp" thread: "However, he [his doctor] also told me that he has had his patients using Quest, but in the past month he has had a bunch of them suddenly showing a 0.1 value." (Boldface mine).

So, if PSA test results should be occurring in random number patterns, which seems probable, then doesn't the repeated occurrence of 0.1 in a bunch of reported results imply it's actually some sort of machine thing, and not a naturally occurring event?

Again, I'm no mathematician or statistician, and I again invite others better qualified than I am to comment, but doesn't this make it seem that there really is something other than naturally occurring PSA rises going on here, that is, something to do with the machines?