Need input PSA 0.1

Had Davinci surgery in March 2008. Psa at that time was 2.4 with biopsy showing cancer in one side 10% t0 30% in 4 of the samples. Surgery had a positive surgical margin. I have had 18 standard PSA tests since then and have been less than 0.1... Latest one today came back as 0.1... I know another test will be the course of action. I look at it as since it is a standard test, then 0.1 is pretty detectable, since others with a sensitive test are concerned when it reaches 0.05... Please send me your opinions and comments THANKS

lab error. Feels like a lab error. Likely someone just forgot to report the "less than."

I vote for a retest and yelling at the people reporting the numbers.

You could ask for the sensitive test too, but I am not sure that is needed. I'd be surprised that after all this time things are rising. Possible, but unexpected. First rule of testing: if test results aren't within expectations - verify and confirm the result.

Andrew

By the way I was a gleason 6 at surgery Yes, Compiler..Quest labs did the test.. Please comment on that

The thing that concerns me is......... I have done the standard test to avoid the noise that ultra sensitive numbers cause. My thoughts are that if a standard test comes back 0.1 then it's a no brainer that PSA is showing up at or close to that level.

Woodstock:

We had some lengthy threads on Quest. Specifically, folks had the exact same situation as yours. All of a sudden, the < sign disappeared. It is a problem with Quest.

It causes tremendous angst. Very concerning.

Maybe Prat will come on and elaborate.

Maybe someone can find the thread and post the link.

Woodstock, it will make you feel much better!


Mel

Don't know for certain, but it's possible an ultra sensitive .04 would be a standard <0.1 and an ultra sensitive .05 would be a standard 0.1. If the result is correct your PSA may have varied a miniscule bit.

You could get an ultra sensitive or repeat the test. Will be interested in what you learn. Hoping it's inconsequential.

Wilderness (RV vacationing in Alabama & loving it)

Wilderness...No. any ultra of .09 and below is always, always a std <0.1.. no deviation there. there is a possibility that with a 3 decimal ultra, some labs have them, a .09 would test .099, basically a .1 heck for that matter so is .09. Im telling ya and those who know me have heard this plenty. When a new technology is developed,i.e such as ultra, They{the backside of us} in the medical society, and all the other institutions will " discover" a "need " for them, and at the risk of being a cynic, the glory and the dollar does motivate. This the 21st century...Anyon over 40 is well aware of the change everywhere and it ain't done yet..

My GP has scheduled another test 3 months out. I probably will go to my surgeon/urologist soon and get his input on this. I will ask if we should do another test sooner, which I will encourage/request. Hard to hang my hat on lab error. it always different when its you to rely on the possibility of a mistake... But it is possible. Good response that it could have been .09 and now its 0.1.... basically the same... Just after 8 years hard to figure its 0.1... Have to look at that as a positive though... more thoughts / opinions ???

A footnote on the Quest Diagnostics role in this.

I too had been receiving <0.1 reports (all testing done at QD) for the past three years since having IMRT, until this past Oct. 26 when it came back as 0.1 (no less than sign). I even started a thread about this topic on that same day:

www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3522633

and got some good responses from you all on the question of the missing "less than" sign.

In that thread I also noted that I intended to contact QD using the question submission page on their website, and put the question directly to them as to what it means, if anything, when the patient suddenly loses the less than sign. I did indeed submit that question to them on that same day, using their question submission function.

So far now, 18 days, I have heard nothing back from QD, and at this point I don't expect to. Whether it's their company policy not to answer questions such as this one, for whatever reason, or they are genuinely unaware of this phenomenon, or are unsure how to address it, etc., I don't know. I have toyed with the idea of trying to call them by phone in further search of a response to this question, but am reluctant to, for fear that I will likely get mired in a telephone robot response system that would just pass me from robot voice to robot voice. I just don't feel up to that right now.

So, woodstock97, if it happened that you did want to pursue this question with QD, and Pratoman has generously offered to assist you with this using his insider contact at QD, then that would likely be the best way for you to go, if you want to try that.

BTW, I saw my uro a few days after getting the 0.1, for the very purpose of discussing this, my annual PSA result. After I told him about losing the less than sign, he was unconcerned, and said that he "sees this all the time" with his PCa patients, and that as long as the person is "in the right range" then it's not a cause for concern. That's interesting.

I believe that some of us have reported their own doctors reporting to this effect, but the fact that I have not seen any outcry in the literature about this matter on the part of the doctors leads me to believe it's not an issue for them.

Or it may be that this "loss of less than sign" thing is going to get curiouser and curiouser before we finally get some kind of resolution to it.

I have submitted a question to them on their website. Will be interesting to see if they will answer and what that answer will be if they do.... To many people are seeing this to just ignore. Contact them...........

I submitted a question to Quest on their website, Approx one week ago and no response yet..

" then since it is a standard test, 0.1 is pretty detectable " Using that premise a 0.09 would be " pretty detectable" also. I mean, if the report is correctly reported, its value would show <0.1 like your last 18, of which every one of those could be 0.09 had you had 2 decimal point ultras on all 18. Sticky wicket, whot?? Personally the hub bub about Quest is unwarranted,IMO.

Prato... How did Jodi Speaker respond to your inquiry re. the high value?

Bozolidat said...

Prato... How did Jodi Speaker respond to your inquiry re. the high value?

She only took my information. She promised i would get a call with someone specifically equipped to handle the issue. A week later i received a phone call from the Director of Science and Test Design/Oncology Division. He told me that they retested the sample and could not reproduce the high reading, the retest showed <.02/undetectable). Told me that they also checked calibration of the specific machine, with no problems showing, and they cannot define the reason for the high reading. He said that it was possible there was some sort of contamination in the tube of tested blood that might not have been present in the "mother tube". He indicated that the machine and personnel involved would be closely monitored for a period of time.