I need PSA help

Jeff,

It would help those on this forum to respond to your question if you provided more information. If you have been reading post here you see the type of information others provide in their signature space. Information such as when you were diagnosed and what your stage and Gleason was when diagnosed is helpful. Also, what type of treatment did you have? If surgery, what was your post op pathology results?

I do not have a personal comparison for you on the PSA as I was just told that mine was undetectable. Others on this forum have reported simliar PSA values after treatment and their urologist have not been concerned about those levels. From my viewpoint if it can be measured then it is not undetectable.

Tamu

After surgery, I have been told to make sure that all PSA samples come from the same lab. You can have differences in the PSA level based on the "equipment" that a lab has.

Regards before surgery, I believe that in today's thinking the change in PSA is as important as the absolute number. As you can see by my data, I was 2.62 PSA with cancer!

Ed 

Kitt - It's pretty common knowledge that most urologists advise "less than 0.02 as being "undetectible"!

That was our reading for both of our first two post op PSA tests at 3 months and 6 months. When I said . .what is "undetectible" the doctor said standard measure for that is less than 0.02.

As a cancer patient, post surgery being told it fell between 0 and 2.5 and was deemed "low" would not be acceptable (a rather wide range I'd say.)

I'm thinking your chart from the National Cancer Institute applies to PSA readings prior to cancer diagnosis.

;o) Linda & Bob

"Undetectable" depends on the lab's capability. If its equipment can only measure down to 0.1, then your reading would come back as "undetectable" - from that lab. Your lab is able to measure PSAs below 0.04, therefore, your reading is 0.04, not "undetectable".

-Gordy

Friends,

I start my Micro PSA's soon.  This thread has been very helpful.

I feel the physician should have said "statistically insignificant." 

For more meaningful interpretation, such small numbers scaled in the bottom 2% of "Low" (.04/2.5 < 2% - Thanks Kitt) should include the "variance" such a machine expereinces every time it examines the same sample.

Swim's point about a number moving up seems the most relevant.

Thanks everyone.

C^Cedar

Hi Swimom & everyone

My robotic surgery was 6/29/06 by Dr. Menon

Cancer contained gleason 3+3 I spot 3+4 no margins

PSA has been

9/06  >0.1

12/06>0.1

3/06    0.03 ultra sensitive PSA just being extra careful

5/06    0.04 A little concerned ??

I want to thank everyone for their responses