See All
Preferences
My Communities
My Discussions
My Email Digests


Although, it does not effectively address the age consideration, in my opinion, it does provide a realively balanced look at varying factors in, treatment considerations.
It is written by an anonymous Urologist. You should find it interesting and, hopefully, helpful. I would be happy to provide an E-mail copy to anyone making a specific request to: John@newPCa.org
(aka) az4peaksView Thread

This is often very difficult to determine, and since you give no post-operation details of pathology found and/or sequential monitoring PSA history, any recommendation as to secondary treatment would be pure guessing, rather than informed and thoughtful consultation.
Overall, Salvage Radiation is effective in about 50% of the cases in 5 year statistics and something less than that, in 10 year results, which reflects the problems with confidently identifying the source of a recurrence.
The probable reality is, that at 71 y/o, you need to decide whether the POTENTIAL for cure is sufficient to risk the POTENTIAL morbidity (side effects) of further "intent to cure" treatment. But this should be an INFORMED decision based upon the most reliable information available, about your SPECIFIC situation.
With an actuarial life expectancy of about 12.5 years, the question that needs to be posed, is it necessary to cure your disease or is it more logical, based on what you learn, to try and effectively CONTROL the now chronic disease until you will most likely die of some other fatal malady.
All of these considerations depend on such facts as the extent of any residual effects from your surgery, existing co-morbidities, general health and your present life style at 71. There is lots to think about and seeking guidance from the professionals, available to you, who have the availability of ALL your records is wise.
I would suggest that, in addition to your Urologist, you have consultations with a Radiological Oncologist and a Medical Oncologist, before deciding on your next treatment decision. Good luck! - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaksView Thread

For ball-park reference, in the AUA's PSA Best Practice Update in 2009, the age-specific PSA value medians (50% above/50% below) cited, were 0.7 ng/ml for men in their 40s, 0.9 ng/ml for men in their 50s, 1.2 for men in their 60s, and 1.5 for men in their 70s.
The first of the two most notable studies concerning PSA annual velocity indicated 0.75 ng/ml in any one year justified a Biopsy recommendation. The second and most recent Study indicated that 0.35 would be a more appropriate threshold, particularly in younger men (53 qualifies).
However, PSA results need to be weighed along with other diagnostic data in the medical record and a subjective judgment made as to its significance. The Doctor's recommendation to re-assess in a relatively short 3 month time frame would not appear to be an unreasonable suggestion, in my layman's opinion.
At the levels you quote, a Free PSA test would have questionable reliability. Both the manufacturer and the FDA approval state that it is intended for use in men with PSA levels between 4.0 and 10 ng/ml Total PSA results. More recent Studies have suggested an expanded reliability down to 2.5 ng/ml. Free PSA must be run on the same blood sample as the Total PSA, to which it relates and using the same manufacturer's complementary assay material.
If the next PSA continues the upward trend, you may wish to discuss the possibility of having a PCA3 Urine test to help clarify the PSA result (and any Free PSA result, if done). This would require an office visit, however, because it requires a vigorous massage of he Prostate prior to obtaining the Urine sample for submission to the Laboratory.
Good luck and I will be happy to answer any specific questions you may have. - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaksView Thread

However, there is great debate as to whether what he discovered is the same element as what we know as PSA today and since PSA was originally a generic term, it could refer to any antigen thought to be exclusive to Prostate origination.
In fact, the antigen that is now identified as PSA has proven NOT to be EXCLUSIVELY specific to the Prostate but it is, by far, the most prolific producer of the element in the blood we now measure with commercial PSA assays. Since it is the only really clinically significant source of such measurable levels, the term PSA has remained in tact and a U.S. Patent was issued under that designation, but not to Ablin.
I have an interesting Paper that chronicles the complicated "discovery" of "PSA" and the varied contributors to its evolution into the worlds most widely used and clinically viable diagnostic marker for detecting Prostate abnormalities. However, the results, by themselves, are NOT Cancer specific.
I would be happy to E-mail this enlightening summary of relevant medical literature to anyone specifically requesting it to - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaks
I wouldView Thread

Both RATIO"S are equal, so no conversion would be necessary.
The RATIO of microgram per Liter (ug/L) is the SAME as nanogram per milliliter (ng/ml), since each of the latter is 1000th of the former. - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaks
View Thread

To specifically answer your question, YES the 0.80 ug/L is MUCH higher than the usual clinically "undetectable" post-surgical Standard that is normally used with Total PSA assays, which is LESS THAN 0.1 (in either ng/ml or ug/L) on the "Standard" PSA test (<0.1ng/ml), which reports results to a sensitivity of tenths of a millilitre (ml).
When Hyper- or Ultra-Sensitive PSA assays (reporting in the Hundredths or Thousandths of a ml) are used, they can often report actual readings, but at such low levels of sensitivity that it INCREASES the potential for, often, clinically meaningless variations in such readings. Such insignificant variations can cause substantially increased, and often needless PSA anxiety on the part of many Patients.
Since you report your result to 2 decimal points, I ASSUME, that you had the more sensitive assay employed, but assuming the decimal point is in the correct location, the 0.8 result is unfavorably significant regardless of sensitivity level involved or how many zeroes are added BEHIND it.
If the the result had been found to be .08 or .008 ug/L, it would have been considered clinically "undetectable" and you would have been considered, presently, PCa free.
Free PSA is not usually employed for ROUTINE post-surgery PSA monitoring, as Total PSA is more indicative of recurrence, since Free PSA is usually not reliably accurate at such extremely low Total PSA readings.
I hope this has helped your (and other readers) understanding of post-surgery PSA monitoring and I will be happy to respond to any questions or clarifications desired. Good luck! - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaksView Thread

A Study by Dr. Catalona at Northwestern University Medical Center showed the following "median" (50% above & 50% below) levels found for men in the following age groups:
40's = 0.7 ng/ml
50's = 0.9
60's = 1.3
70's = 1.7
You seem to be very close to the median and that should be encouraging. Statistical hances are high, that you probably have a healthy Prostate, as yet relatively unaffected by BPH, which is the natural growth of the Prostate that occurs in nearly all men, in varying degrees, after the age of 40 y/o.
Unless you have some symptoms, you test pretty well at the present time. - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaksView Thread


Surgical procedures can vary widely in both scope and severity, depending upon the location and the extent of the specific case being treated, so it is impossible to know why you do no longer experience ejaculation upon orgasm.
To my knowledge, the colectomy and/or proctectomy, by themselves, would not normally affect the production and/or delivery of ejaculate, which are not part of the same excretory system, however it MAY well be that the extent of disease present may have prompted the excision or damaging of the vas-deferens or even the Prostate itself, but these factors are unknown from your Post.
In any event it is unlikely, in my layman's OPINION (I am not a Doctor) that ejaculation, or lack of it, is unlikely the cause of your PSA elevation, but the cause could still be benign (non-cancerous) rather than Cancerous, with Prostatitis (inflammation) being a real possibility.
Of course, it COULD also be Cancer and further investigation by your professional advisors is necessary to determine its actual source.
As Replicant suggested, you may wish to pose the question to Dr. Judd Moul (MD) on this site. who is much better prepared to answer your question with authority, than am I. Good luck! - John@newPCa.org (aka) az4peaks
View Thread
See Related Cancer Communities
Women's Health Newsletter
Find out what women really need.
Other Prostate Cancer Information
More Related Communities
The opinions expressed in WebMD User-generated content areas like communities, reviews, ratings, or blogs are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. User-generated content areas are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment.
Do not consider WebMD User-generated content as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
©2005-2013 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.



