PSA Uptick after 4 post RP years undetectable

PSA from 0.03 to 0.04 kinda seems not much. But im not an expert

Hi Bobmars,

Yes, it is definitely possible that it could be a fluke. My PSA was undetectable post-SRT (<0.01) for several tests. Then, I had a test return with a result of 0.05. I retested 10 days later and it was <0.01.

I recommend you get a retest when you see your urologist.

Rick

Hello Bobmars,

I experienced a similar situation last month. After several years, my undetectable status changed to detectable (it reached 0.013). One notable factor was that the type of test used for my previous tests seemed to have changed without my knowledge. It was only when I closely examined the test results that this became apparent.

I promptly contacted my doctor, and we conducted another test using the same assay as before. Fortunately, the results returned to an undetectable status.

I recommend undergoing a retest and advise against stressing too much. You might find some helpful suggestions in the responses I received from my previous post last month, available here.

I hope this information is helpful.

Best regards,
Zzarth

I was kicked out of the 0 club about 4 years ago. After several tests, and an increasing PSA, I was placed on
ZYTIGA this year. Talk to your doc about your options and good luck.

GG1273, I do not believe the fluctuations you have seen in your Labcorp uPSA results have anything to do with micromets. Rather, the figures are IMO well within the normal fluctuation due to internal factors (body's normal physiological ranges for non-prostatic tissue that produces minute amounts of PSA) and external factors (the assay itself, equipment calibration, sample prep., etc.).

For example a paper was published in a journal dedicated to laboratory testing that happened to pick Labcorp's uPSA test to determine whether it was practical/accurate to report test values to the thousandth place. Under ideal conditions, a sample with a known PSA concentration of 0.010) was consecutively tested 20 times. One standard deviation (S.D.) turned out to be ±0.001 Taking 2 S.D. (which generally covers 98% of all test results), this assay will report a value ranging from 0.008 to 0.012 for the same 0.010 target sample under ideal lab conditions (which don't usually occur). When you couple this variability with whatever our body's daily (hourly? weekly? monthly?) range of PSA production is, you can see that there will be fluctuation.

(A trivial point. From what I learned writing to Labcorp, the period during which Labcorp raised its lower limit of detection from 0.006 to 0.014 had nothing to do with Covid (it started before, in fact), but rather with regulations governing test reporting and documentation.)

I would not be concerned about your uPSA results.

__________

There is uncertainly in the right-most digit of any lab test. I suggest choosing a PSA test that reports one more decimal place than the place you are interested in. For example, getting back a result of, say, 0.023 and rounding this yourself to 0.02, means the 0.02 is more reliable than getting back a 2-digit result of 0.02; for me, a two-place result of 0.02 on a lab report could mean your actual value is closer to 0.03 or 0.01. Also, your PSA trend is usually more important than your actual value at these low numbers. So it's important to stay with the same test method, preferably drawn at the same place and processed at the same branch.

Like wave reinforcement and cancellation, your external and internal variables might mainly cancel each other or sum together on any given test day.

Djin