This forum is for the discussion of anything to do with Prostate Cancer. There are only four rules:
No fundraisers, no commercials (although it is OK to recommend choices of treatment or medical people based on your personal research; invitations to participate in third-party surveys are also acceptable, provided there is no compensation to YANA);
No harvesting e-mail addresses for Spam;
No insults or flaming - be polite and respectful at all times and understand that there may be a variety of points of view, all of which may have some validity;
Opinions are OK, but please provide as much factual evidence as possible for any assertions that you are making
Failure to abide by these simple rules will result in the immediate and permanent suspension of your posting privileges.
Since this is an International Forum, please specify your location in your post.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Peter: "My urologist says he does not use any numbing during the biopsy", . . . well tell your urologist that this is where his modus operandi just got changed and YOU do require numbing during the biopsy.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Urologist says he will do around 8-9 needles without numbing. He says needles will be very quick. Give me the lowdown. Does this really hurt without numbing, or is just more of the same type of sensation like DRE or massage? What has been your experience? If the entire procedure goes quickly, I probably can endure whatever it feels like. But if I must linger with pain during the procedure, I will have to reconsider getting another urologist. Although I have been with this urologist for a very long time.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Great comments above on the biopsy.
I had it done by my urologist, with some local anesthetic for numbing. There was some stinging while taking the samples, but at least for me, it was not very painful. The sample taking lasted about 30 seconds and was over before I knew it.
Definitely have the anesthetic - I cannot image why the doctor would not give it to you.
One last comment on this... while taking the samples itself is not very painful, I found the whole procedure stressful, mainly because I did not know exactly what was going to happen. Ask your doctor to take a few minutes to explain what he will do during the procedure, and what you should do after the procedure. For me, this would have made things a bit less stressful.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Peter, I was admitted as a day patient, "knocked" out completely. I came to feeling great. My wife drove me home and I had no problems except for the blood thing.
I would be asking for sort of numbing and why not ask, don't be shy.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Terry, I read your story with the deepest interest. You are a very strong individual. I cannot imagine how I could go through what you have experienced. My prayers go out to you and the others.
I have reading quite a bit about PSA testing and PC. I understand that the higher the PSA, the chance is greater I detecting PC. As of 11/5/09 my PSA is 6.5. Is it possible to have a free PSA over 25% with a PSA of 6.5? If so, are there any statistics on these chances? I am going to do a free PSA on 12/10/09. That will be 16 days after my DRE. Maybe it's human nature to have hope against hope, but I hoping my PSA comes down and my free PSA is greater than 25%. On the other hand, the PSA may be higher than 6.5 with little free PSA. Then I know for sure PC is likely to be detected by biopsy.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Peter,
Ted suggested some days ago that you should read the piece I titled PSA 101 - have you been there? I think not because you would probably not ask this question Is it possible to have a free PSA over 25% with a PSA of 6.5? Because the answer is clearly YES, it is possible. If you have looked through the site you will get a clear picture that a PSA level of 6.5 ng/ml is not particularly high - see the stories of men with their PSA levels in the hundreds or even thousands - THEY have worryingly high levels.
On the PSA 101 page you would have seen this about PSA and free PSA:
When the PSA test was introduced in 1990 a reading of more than 10 ng/ml was regarded as one that should be investigated further. This figure was subsequently reduced to 4.00 ng/ml, which is regarded as "normal" in most countries and by most medical people. In the US there is a move to reduce the limit to 2.60 ng/ml or even to 1.25 ng/ml. On the other hand, one leading expert physician feels that any PSA result under 12 ng/ml is not worth being concerned about, unless there are other symptoms. Between 25% and 35% of men with a PSA reading of between 4.00 ng/ml and 10.00 ng/ml will be found to have prostate cancer - in the majority of cases, the elevated reading will be due to some other cause. Here is a small table that summarises on study on the relationship between PSA and the likelihood of prostate cancer being detected.
Table omitted as it will not format here
If any PSA result is between 4 and 10 ng/ml, and provided there has been no treatment, a second test should be run - the so-called fPSA, PSA II or Free PSA test. This doesn't mean that you don't pay for it. It refers to the amount of what is referred to as "unbound" PSA. The result of this test will be shown as a percentage of the total PSA measured. The risk of cancer being present varies in inverse proportion to the percentage shown. The Table below (rewritten for this post for clarity) shows the probabilities:
Free PSA 0 – 10% Probability of Cancer 56%
Free PSA 10 – 15% Probability of Cancer 28 %
Free PSA 15 – 20% Probability of Cancer 20 %
Free PSA 20 - 25 Probability of Cancer 16%
Free PSA greater than 25% Probability of Cancer 8%
As you see, there is an inverse relationship – the higher the percentage of fPSA, the lower the probability of PCa being discovered, but even at very low (below 10%) levels of fPSA there is still a 44% probability that there will not be any PCa found and at very high levels, (over 25%) there is about an 8% probability of PCa being found.
So the higher the percentage, the less chance that there is of the PSA being caused by prostate cancer. A fPSA of over 10% would mean that the most likely cause of the elevated PSA is not prostate cancer: a fPSA of under 10% is strongly correlated with prostate cancer. There are some studies which show that the fPSA test may be valid for readings between 2.5 ng/ml and 20 ng/ml.
Peter, one of the most important issues about PCa, which I don't think you have grasped yet, is that the entire process of diagnosis, choosing treatment if neccssary, the outcome of any treatment is all UNCERTAIN. There is no one anywhere that can say "This level of PSA means that you have cancer" "That level of PSA means that you do not have cancer."
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Yes, I did read PSA 101. I just wanted to know about anyone else's direct experience. But I understand what you are saying. There are a lot of unknowns involved here. What about velocity? I have read that the more rapid the rise, then if PC is detectec, the more aggressive the disease may be. This does seem to make sense.
I also wanted to clarify a previous entry. Although my dad did not die from his PC, he did died from Alzheimer's less than 5 years after his radiation treatment for the PC.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
You can't measure velocity in a small series of highly variable results, such as yours. There is controversy about the value of measuring velocity. A recent study - mentioned in The""New" Prostate Cancer Information site (see links last week) - implies that the value of velocity has only been demonstrated in studies run by Dr Catalona, the 'father' of PSA testing.
Can I suggest that if you are looking for only personal experiences, rather than general information, you make that clear in future posts.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Thanks again Terry. I apologize if in any way I have confused any readers on this forum. I have read information about PC on countless number of websites. I am looking for any information that may help me better understand what I may now confront. I also am interested in anybody's related experiences with high PSA. I hope I am not disrespecting any one on the site. If I am, it is not intentional and I apologize.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Hi Peter
there have been a lot of very useful comments on your thread and I hope that you are feeling more empowered and settled regarding your current results - I just wanted to add my experiences on the biopsy.
My first 2 were done in the doctors rooms. There was no anaessthetic used apart from a local contained in the lubricating jelly used - I cannot see why any doctor would not use this. In my case I had extreme discomfort, and the process was not that quick - Each core is taken from a needle fired by a "gun" which then is put in a jar and the gun "reloaded" - so it took some time to collect 6 cores - about 15 min maybe from start to finish. Each time I could hear the click before the shot which made it worse. Each sample was like being kicked hard in the backside.
After the proceedure I was emotionally shattered - it was so invasive. I took some time to recover, went back to work as I had a business meeting, but had to go home.
I am sorry if this gives a negative picture and as Terry has pointed out, some react better than others but it is important to prepare. I had a 2nd biopsy 3 months later, which was as uncomforatable as the 1st, but not as emotionally draining. I was not prepared to have the 3rd one under local and was put under for that with no side effects after.
It will help if you have someone with you for support.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Thanks a lot Tim. I appreciate your information about your experience with the biopsy. May I ask why you had another biopsy after 3 months. That's quite an ordeal in itself. I am starting to think that if my urologist doesn't at least use some numbing in the jelly, I will have to consider another urologist. It sounds to me like the biopsy may feel worse than getting radiation to treat PC. Am I totally ignorant here, or simply jumping the gun regarding any discomfort associated with radiation treatment?
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Peter,
If your urologist doesn´t want to give you numbing, he belongs to the ignorant kind. Maybe so ignorant as not to give you antibiotics. So please make sure of that.
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Hi Peter
In reply to why I had 3 biopsies - I had a high PSA and low fPSA ratio - indicating potential cancer - however the pathologists could not diagnose PCa with the 1st 2 biopsies - which were labelled "atypical" the "highly suspicious". Thats the way it is, if the biopsies are not conclusive you will probably be asked to re test.
Having said that my current uro who did the surgery disagreed with that approach - he would have done a saturation biopsy under general, and taken 20 odd cores (vs 6,6 and 8 over my 3 biopsies) probably would have found the cancer a year earlier. The reality is that you take a very small sample size and the cancer is often missed. If I had to choose again I would have done the saturation biopsy 1st off. Needless to say the proceedure in hospital would be more expensive.
Your uro should maybe ultrasound the prostate for size - the bigger, the more samples they may take.
The other consideration is interpreting the biopsy results - often post prostatectomy the pathology is re rated. In my case biopsy found Ca in one lobe, Gleason 3+3 - clinical post was in both lobes, Gleason 3+4
Best wishes, Tim from South Africa
Re: Rapid Rise In PSA (sould be Unusual Variations in PSA)
Hi Peter
I am doing well, thank you - you can read my story at http://www.yananow.net/Mentors/TimG.htm. I will be visiting my specialist tomorrow to get my 1st post op PSA results and discuss penile rehab. I'll update my blog later
