40-60 yrs...how was your PCa discovered?

During Gary's last appt we got to discussing the latest trend in GPs not using PSA test due to inaccuracy of test. Our medonc expressed his frustration at the illogic behind this, because while it is not perfect and may lead to over treatment, it is the best test for the buck that is out there. Doing nothing means more advanced PCa in younger men.
He has said to us several times that the younger men tend to have the more aggressive cancer.
Soooo, my question is directed to the younger guys (but young at heart should chime in too ).
How did you get referred to the Uro for a biopsy that discovered your PCa?
Beth n Gary

I'm 64 and was diagnosed in January. So I'm young and heart but over 60, so I'll post my answer without voting in the poll.

My PCP Dr. Has been doing DREs and checking my PSA since I turned about 50, don't remember exactly. At that time PSA was .7. At some point around 53-54 it started to rise slowly to 1.1, then 1.3, then 1.7 over 3 years. At that point, he referred me to a urologist, and when it got to 2.3 over the next two years, thenuro recommended biopsy, which I had elsewhere, and it was negative. 18 months later PSA was 4.3 and time for another biopsy, this time it was positive,
I am thankful every day for a PCP who knew to do the PSA test and also knew his limitations and regretted me to a specialist early, not waiting till it hit the magic 4.0 I'm still with this Doctor,

trailguy, it's not a gov't panel. It's most likely a panel convened by the insurers who are all about saving money this quarter.

I started screening in my 40's due to family history, referred to the Uro due to rising PSA, negative DRE, no symptoms.

That ******* government panel also justified my mind in not getting screened. I also had an aversion to having someone sticking their finger up 👆 my butt. Pretty silly in retrospect.

No, I'm not young, but I will definitely lay claim to being young at heart!

My story is maybe a little different, in that I had originally sought medical help for some pretty advanced BPH symptoms, which resulted in a TURP operation, naturally followed by post-op PSA monitoring, which stayed high, and that resulting in an eventual PCa Dx.

So it was almost "Oh, by the way, you have prostate cancer."

So I guess sometimes it's a somewhat roundabout way that gets one to the Dx.

Mine was initially due to peeing blood. That started a path of 3 wrong diagnosis, followed by two months of every test imaginable. Had two DRE, smooth, not hard, not enlarged. CT scans showed lymph nodes, bones and lungs had spots. Finally biopsie spots on lung, returned PCa, which led to PSA test wi it coming in at 5600.

PSA during an annual physical. I was 48 and really feeling very healthy so it was a total surprise, though my dad had a lot of cancers.

My PCa was detected by pure chance and unexpected side effects of my participation, by giving blood, to a ongoing scientific diagnostic trial in Sweden with 60.000 men aiming to assess whether a panel of biomarkers for prostate cancer can substantially reduce the proportion of men referred to biopsy whilst maintaining sensitivity for aggressive prostate cancer. Probably this has given me a longer life since I would probably not have done a DRE and PSA test otherwise (no symptoms).

I checked "DRE part of regular physical," but that technically not correct-- it's just the closest answer that fit. The unfortunate truth is that my GP NEVER performed DRE and NEVER performed PSA's, even though was/am in my fifties. By sheer dumb luck, I went to see a urologist about an unrelated (and in retrospect...trivial) matter, and as a matter of principle the urologist performed a DRE and discovered a nodularity. This led to a PSA which was elevated, and the 2 together resulted in a biopsy, which identified the cancer.

I am considering looking for another GP, but since I've had a prostatectomy, that particular blind spot on his part is no longer an issue....Just holding a grudge I guess....

Thank you for all the replies. I have no idea why there seems to be such inconsistency in the medical community regarding the use of PSA testing, compounded by the latest recommendations by the government, but I think the results of this survey shows that in our little sampling, having a proactive GP has made all the difference, especially since most men have no symptoms or they get misdiagnosed. I found Gemlin' s post very interesting and a little ironic too. Did the trial show that PSA was able to detect PCa without unnecessary bx?

Celebrate, I think you'll find consensus in this forum about the value of screening plus understanding of it's benefits and it's limitations. Since PC is essentially asymptomatic until it's way too late to treat effectively, education and screening are the tools we have.

F8 said...
wow lots of guys on this thread that that anti-PSA advocates wouldn't mind throwing under the bus!

ed

I may be one of them. I had high psa for 4 years (baseline was high @ 50 yo). I believed in all of the PSA testing doesn't save lives press. I was aided in that belief by my PCP who believed the stability of my psa didn't warrant the risks of a biopsy.

When I began to have flow problems I demanded one and was diagnosed with low grade low volume G6. My uro continues to insist that the flow is due to BPH...a diagnosis he made with a ct scan. He put me on a dual track treatment plan. AS with BPH.

Thanks to this site I learned about 3t MRIs. It shows more cancer than the biopsy indicates.

My pre.surgical consult is Tuesday. Here's hoping I haven't been misdiagnosed!

For me it was part of a routine annual physical when my doctor was reviewing my risk factors for cancer in general. Due to family history of cancer and my brother having PC, we decided to run a PSA test to establish a baseline. The DRE was normal.

It was high, a retest was higher which resulted in a referral to the URO and a recommendation for a biopsy.

Both my brothers received PSA screenings because our family has a generally high risk factor for cancers.
Andrew