Prostate Cancer Survivors






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.

General Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: Conflicting PSA scores

Hi Frank,

All of my ultra sensitive PSA's tests have been performed at the same lab. My urologist surgeon said that a higher threshold has been adopted by
several laboratories and that the threshold that they use now is considered non-detectable as you suggested.

Thank You for your input

Re: Conflicting PSA scores

When I had different results like that it was because I went to different testing labs and they had different machines to do the tests. I was even able to find out which machines they were using and pull up the operators manuals. The machines are completely automated, do thousands of tests per hour and calibrated every day. Your PSA numbers are so low that you can think of them as zero. They have to get to 0.1 before you can even look at trying to calculate doubling time; how long to go from 0.1 to 0.2.
Actually 0.014 could have a doubling time of 3 months and still come back in 6 months at the next test as 0.056. At one year with an aggressive 3 month DT it would be 0.224
I am not suggesting this is an aggressive cancer but one to look at sooner rather than later.
So this is a good number to follow. I think a re-test in 3 months would be a good idea.