PSA Test? AARP says "Skip it."

New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> ]

kcragman
Regular Member


Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 240
   Posted 3/31/2009 4:32 AM (GMT -7)   
May-June 2009 AARP magazine, page 33:

"Medical Tests You Need...And Tests You (Probably) Can Skip"

They have PSA listed in the "You Probably Can Skip" column. They say "evidence for routine testing for men 50 through 74 is inconclusive." And they say, "Consult your doctor, especially if you have symptoms, such as painful urination or blood in the urine."

And if you have no symptoms at all (like me) and you just happen to have an aggressive form of prostate cancer, well then, you can just die a long, painful, cancerous death.

Once again, my personal opinion is, skipping the PSA test is not a good answer. What you do with the information is strictly your decision, but not knowing can literally kill you.

Just my 2 cents.
kcragman
Age: 53; 52 at DX
March 2006: PSA 2.5
Dec 2007: PSA taken for insurance application. I did not see the results until late
Jan '08 - after I was rejected. Their lab said PSA 4.5.
Feb 2008: PSA 3.7.
March 2008: Biopsy. Gleason 7 (4+3) 12 cores taken. 5 on the left side were
cancerous and the 6th was suspect.
May 5, 2008: Da Vinci robotic laparoscopy at GW Hospital, Washington DC.

Post op: Gleason 9 (4+5). 15% of prostate involved. Stage: pT3a. Negative margins. Lymph node and nerve samples taken, and appeared to be cancer free.

July 2008: PSA at 7 weeks was undetectable.
August 2008: PSA at 14 weeks (3 months) was undetectable.
Nov 2008: PSA at 6 months was undetectable.
Feb 2009: PSA at 9 months was undetectable.


Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25353
   Posted 3/31/2009 5:23 AM (GMT -7)   
I get the AARP magazine myself. They have wide respect and readership in the millions. What absolutely terrible advice to start spreading around. I view things like this as a major step backwards in the detection and treatment of Prostate Cancer, and in saving the lives of almost 30,000 men a year. I think the magazine was irresponsible for publishing it, and may write a formal complaint to the editor. It pissed me off big time.

David in SC
Age 56, 56 at DX, PSA 7/7 5.8, 7/8 12.3,9/8 14.5
3rd Biopsy Sept 08: Positive 7 of 7 cores, 40-90%, Gleason 7, 4+3
Open RP surgery 11/14/8, Right nerves spared, 4 days hospital, staples out 11/24/8, 5th cath out on 1/19/9
Post-surgery Pathlogy Report:Gleason 3+4=7, pT2c, 42 grm, tumor 20%, Contained in capsular, clear margins, clear lymph nodes 
First PSA Post Surgery   2/9 .05, 6 month on 5/9
 
 


Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25353
   Posted 3/31/2009 5:25 AM (GMT -7)   
P.S. I don't understand, it's almost like anti-PSA testing campaign going on in the media now, where before, there was a lot of push. The PSA test, we all know, is a simple, quick, blood test, non-invasive as far as I am concerned.
Age 56, 56 at DX, PSA 7/7 5.8, 7/8 12.3,9/8 14.5
3rd Biopsy Sept 08: Positive 7 of 7 cores, 40-90%, Gleason 7, 4+3
Open RP surgery 11/14/8, Right nerves spared, 4 days hospital, staples out 11/24/8, 5th cath out on 1/19/9
Post-surgery Pathlogy Report:Gleason 3+4=7, pT2c, 42 grm, tumor 20%, Contained in capsular, clear margins, clear lymph nodes 
First PSA Post Surgery   2/9 .05, 6 month on 5/9
 
 


kcragman
Regular Member


Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 240
   Posted 3/31/2009 6:57 AM (GMT -7)   
This is the standard "media and medicine" relationship. The media gets hold of a "hot" idea or announcement, they partially report it - right or wrong - and then they drop it. As far as the media is concerned, the follow-up details are not exciting enough.

Like salt. I think the NEJM reported in the 1950's that there was evidence that salt might increase your blood pressure. The media picked it up, and all of our mothers picked it up, and general pratictioners picked it up, and that's all you've heard since you were born. But sometime later, the NEJM quietly came out and said there was no empirical evidence that salt actually increases your blood pressure. Well, that was not exciting enough for the media, they never reported it, and we've all believed an inaccuracy for 40-50 years.

To be fair, my wife (the medical scientist) now says there have been recent studies that indicate that salt can - in some cases - increase your BP. I have not seen the studies, but the point is, the media injects some "sound bite" medical ideas into the population - and they are not always accurate. All the public is going to remember from this media blitz is "I don't need the PSA test." Sad.

Personal note: My father battled high blood pressure all his life until he died of heart attack - and rarely ever used salt on anything (of course the smoking and the drinking did not help). My mother's family (the farmers) have always salted their food like crazy people - never had a issue with high BP, but they die of cancer.

I might write a letter to AARP also.

kcragman
Age: 53; 52 at DX
March 2006: PSA 2.5
Dec 2007: PSA taken for insurance application. I did not see the results until late
Jan '08 - after I was rejected. Their lab said PSA 4.5.
Feb 2008: PSA 3.7.
March 2008: Biopsy. Gleason 7 (4+3) 12 cores taken. 5 on the left side were
cancerous and the 6th was suspect.
May 5, 2008: Da Vinci robotic laparoscopy at GW Hospital, Washington DC.

Post op: Gleason 9 (4+5). 15% of prostate involved. Stage: pT3a. Negative margins. Lymph node and nerve samples taken, and appeared to be cancer free.

July 2008: PSA at 7 weeks was undetectable.
August 2008: PSA at 14 weeks (3 months) was undetectable.
Nov 2008: PSA at 6 months was undetectable.
Feb 2009: PSA at 9 months was undetectable.


Swimom
Veteran Member


Date Joined Apr 2006
Total Posts : 1732
   Posted 3/31/2009 7:13 AM (GMT -7)   
Easy for AARP to say such a stupid irresponsible thing....IT hasn't been diagnosed at 50 with prostate cancer! The mag can say whatever it wants. The small fraction of men doagnosed at an early age represented here alone says "skipping" a routine PSA can lead to a death sentence.

Swim
 


Bluenose
Regular Member


Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 260
   Posted 3/31/2009 7:55 AM (GMT -7)   

 

 ...man-o-man fella's I don't know....I run around and when asked always advocate testing....earlier better than later, and I'm in a hospital setting telling these guys to make sure the Dr has written orders to include PSA on their respective blood test.......just another reason why AARP doesn't get any of my money, I too think I'll send a little note highlighting this topic....

    Blue


Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25353
   Posted 3/31/2009 8:32 AM (GMT -7)   
Swim, you said it right. Our group here just represents a tiny drop on the head of a pin with men with PC, can only imagine the number of advanced cases there would be one day if PSA tests were discontinued or discouraged. People tend to forget how many people are suspected of having died of different cancers in the "old days" simply because there weren't tests to know.
Age 56, 56 at DX, PSA 7/7 5.8, 7/8 12.3,9/8 14.5
3rd Biopsy Sept 08: Positive 7 of 7 cores, 40-90%, Gleason 7, 4+3
Open RP surgery 11/14/8, Right nerves spared, 4 days hospital, staples out 11/24/8, 5th cath out on 1/19/9
Post-surgery Pathlogy Report:Gleason 3+4=7, pT2c, 42 grm, tumor 20%, Contained in capsular, clear margins, clear lymph nodes 
First PSA Post Surgery   2/9 .05, 6 month on 5/9
 
 


stxdave
Regular Member


Date Joined Nov 2008
Total Posts : 65
   Posted 3/31/2009 8:58 AM (GMT -7)   
The AARP magazine was founded by an insurance company, United Healthcare, I think. They are frequently on the "get someone else to pay" bandwagon. They wrote an article several years ago touting a federally sponsered healthcare system, administered by private insurance companies.

Sorry, I have to go out and check on the black helicopters buzzing my house.
Dx'd 1999, Age 60, PSA 43, Gleason (3+4=7), T3c
42-3d EBRT w/Lupron/Casodex for 24 months and PSA remaining to be <0.1 for the entire 24 month period.
July 2001 - 2nd opinion required to go intermittent ADT.
MDAnderson biopsy revised Gleason (4+5=9).
Intermittent ADT, Lupron only, with PSA threshhold established at 1.0.
March 2007 - Diminishing returns with Lupron, conferred with MDA urologist for bilateral orchiectomy. Uro asked for biopsy of prostate again. Biopsy resulted in tumors found with Gleason (5+4=9).
August 2007 - RRP and bilateral orchiectomy. PSA <0.1
99% continent immediately
September 2008 - PSA 0.45
November 2008 - PSA 0.67
December 2008 - Resume Casodex
December 2008 - Stricture in bladder neck requiring surgical removal. 99% incontinent immediately.


Life is not waiting for the storm to pass, it's learning to dance in the rain.


Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 3/31/2009 9:14 AM (GMT -7)   
Actually they are somehow connected to The Hartford Insurance Company. Which gives me the best rates on my Truck Insurance by far through aarp and Ive had them for awhile now.
Diagnosed 11/08/07 - Age: 58 - 3 of 12 @5%
Psa: 2.3 - 3+3=6 - Size: 34g -T-2-A
 
2/22/08 - 3D Mapping Saturation Biopsy - 1 of 45 @2% - Psa:2.1 - 3+3=6 - 28g after taking Avodart - Catheter for 1 day -Good Candidate for TFT(Targeted Focal Therapy) Cryosurgery(Ice Balls) - Clinical Research Study
 
4/22/08 - TFT performed at University of Colorado Medical Center - Catheter for 4 days - Slight soreness for 2 weeks but afterward life returns as normal
 
7/30/08 - Psa: .32
11/10/08 - Psa.62 - Not unexpected bounce after the 80% drop the quarter earlier. Along with urine flow readings, an acceptable amount left in bladder measured by sonic. Results warrant skipping third quarter tests, and to return April, 2009 for final biopsy scheduled to
complete clinical research study 
 
 
 


lifeguyd
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 664
   Posted 3/31/2009 9:39 AM (GMT -7)   
Purgatory said...
P.S. I don't understand, it's almost like anti-PSA testing campaign going on in the media now, where before, there was a lot of push. The PSA test, we all know, is a simple, quick, blood test, non-invasive as far as I am concerned.

This is the same  AARP  who's support help pass a "flawed" Medicare part D legislation.  Those laws were set up to provide millions, maybe billions of dollars in excess profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical Giants.  While I appreciate some help with my drug costs, the plan was set up to benefit big business, not poor retirees.  It never would have passed in that form without AARP support.
 
I too wonder about the irresponsible reporting regarding PSA tests.  30,000 lives a year is worth something.
PSA up to 4.7 July 2006 , nodule noted during DRE
Biopsy 10/16/06 ,stageT2A
Aggressive Gleason 4+4=8  right side
DaVinci Surgery  January 2007
Post op confirms gleason 4+4=8
No extension or invasion identified
Few continence problems
PSA 90 day (-.01)  , (6 month -.01) , (9 month +.02) , (1 year +.02) ( 18 months +.02) (two years+.03)
One side nerve spared
success but some plaque with bimix 
born in 1941


lifeguyd
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 664
   Posted 3/31/2009 9:48 AM (GMT -7)   
realziggy said...
Actually they are somehow connected to The Hartford Insurance Company. Which gives me the best rates on my Truck Insurance by far through aarp and Ive had them for awhile now.

AARP is a major marketer of many different insurance packages.  Currently, they are selling United Healthcare's 'Secure Horizons Medicare HMO' under their own name.  (Which I buy)
 
If we understand that they have a profit motive, we can better understand their various positions.
PSA up to 4.7 July 2006 , nodule noted during DRE
Biopsy 10/16/06 ,stageT2A
Aggressive Gleason 4+4=8  right side
DaVinci Surgery  January 2007
Post op confirms gleason 4+4=8
No extension or invasion identified
Few continence problems
PSA 90 day (-.01)  , (6 month -.01) , (9 month +.02) , (1 year +.02) ( 18 months +.02) (two years+.03)
One side nerve spared
success but some plaque with bimix 
born in 1941


Dave7
Regular Member


Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 201
   Posted 3/31/2009 10:28 AM (GMT -7)   

Regardless of what we may think about AARP's opinion, their opinion is a huge indication that the momentum is shifting concerning diagnosis and treatment of PCa.

I think having subjected ourselves to treatment we'd all like to believe we did the right thing.  Particularly when the side effects of that treatment impact the lives of many of us on a daily basis.  But, we are a biased group here.

I wonder, if I hadn't been diagnosed,  would I want to have a PSA test.  No family history, no symptoms.  I don't know.  I have trouble getting my mind around it without being biased.



Age:54
PSA 5/22/06: 5.6
DaVinci surgery: 9/14/06
Gleason: 3+3
Organ confined, clean margins.
Both nerve bundles spared.


Tony Crispino
Veteran Member


Date Joined Dec 2006
Total Posts : 8128
   Posted 3/31/2009 11:05 AM (GMT -7)   

kcragman,

Great catch and post...Here's the online version:

http://www.aarpmagazine.org/health/health/medical_screenings_you_cant_live_without.html

This is a rediculous suggestion, IMHO...We still need the data even if we have uncertainty.  But I know for a fact that lives can be extended.

Tony


Age 46 (44 when Dx)
Pre-op PSA was 19.8 : Surgery at The City of Hope on February 16, 2007
Geason 4+3=7, Stage pT3b, N0, Mx
Positive Margins (PM), Extra Prostatic Extension (EPE) : Bilateral Seminal vesicle invasion (SVI)
HT began in May, '07 with Lupron and Casodex 50mg (2 Year ADT)
IMRT radiation for 38 Treatments ending August 3, '07
Current PSA (January 13, 2009): <0.1
 
My Journal is at Tony's Blog  
 
STAY POSITIVE!


Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 3/31/2009 12:08 PM (GMT -7)   
lifeguyd said...
Purgatory said...

P.S. I don't understand, it's almost like anti-PSA testing campaign going on in the media now, where before, there was a lot of push. The PSA test, we all know, is a simple, quick, blood test, non-invasive as far as I am concerned.

This is the same AARP who's support help pass a "flawed" Medicare part D legislation. Those laws were set up to provide millions, maybe billions of dollars in excess profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical Giants. While I appreciate some help with my drug costs, the plan was set up to benefit big business, not poor retirees. It never would have passed in that form without AARP support.


I too wonder about the irresponsible reporting regarding PSA tests. 30,000 lives a year is worth something.


It made no difference Dave, that was the bill passed through a republican congress. This was the same congress that forbid medicare negotiating a volume discount from the drug companies like the VA does. With ascent of a democratic congress in 2006 one of the first bills passed was correcting that scheme. The original bill would've passed without aarp support.
Diagnosed 11/08/07 - Age: 58 - 3 of 12 @5%
Psa: 2.3 - 3+3=6 - Size: 34g -T-2-A
 
2/22/08 - 3D Mapping Saturation Biopsy - 1 of 45 @2% - Psa:2.1 - 3+3=6 - 28g after taking Avodart - Catheter for 1 day -Good Candidate for TFT(Targeted Focal Therapy) Cryosurgery(Ice Balls) - Clinical Research Study
 
4/22/08 - TFT performed at University of Colorado Medical Center - Catheter for 4 days - Slight soreness for 2 weeks but afterward life returns as normal
 
7/30/08 - Psa: .32
11/10/08 - Psa.62 - Not unexpected bounce after the 80% drop the quarter earlier. Along with urine flow readings, an acceptable amount left in bladder measured by sonic. Results warrant skipping third quarter tests, and to return April, 2009 for final biopsy scheduled to
complete clinical research study 
 
 
 

Post Edited (realziggy) : 3/31/2009 1:13:27 PM (GMT-6)


Ziggy9
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2008
Total Posts : 981
   Posted 3/31/2009 12:12 PM (GMT -7)   
Dave7 said...
Regardless of what we may think about AARP's opinion, their opinion is a huge indication that the momentum is shifting concerning diagnosis and treatment of PCa.

I think having subjected ourselves to treatment we'd all like to believe we did the right thing. Particularly when the side effects of that treatment impact the lives of many of us on a daily basis. But, we are a biased group here.

I wonder, if I hadn't been diagnosed, would I want to have a PSA test. No family history, no symptoms. I don't know. I have trouble getting my mind around it without being biased.


Dave you're 100% correct. I understand the bias. I'll also admit my treatment being far less radical makes it somewhat easier to say maybe I never needed it. Let see in about a year how many here would still recommend new dx patients do as they did.
Diagnosed 11/08/07 - Age: 58 - 3 of 12 @5%
Psa: 2.3 - 3+3=6 - Size: 34g -T-2-A
 
2/22/08 - 3D Mapping Saturation Biopsy - 1 of 45 @2% - Psa:2.1 - 3+3=6 - 28g after taking Avodart - Catheter for 1 day -Good Candidate for TFT(Targeted Focal Therapy) Cryosurgery(Ice Balls) - Clinical Research Study
 
4/22/08 - TFT performed at University of Colorado Medical Center - Catheter for 4 days - Slight soreness for 2 weeks but afterward life returns as normal
 
7/30/08 - Psa: .32
11/10/08 - Psa.62 - Not unexpected bounce after the 80% drop the quarter earlier. Along with urine flow readings, an acceptable amount left in bladder measured by sonic. Results warrant skipping third quarter tests, and to return April, 2009 for final biopsy scheduled to
complete clinical research study 
 
 
 


kcragman
Regular Member


Date Joined May 2008
Total Posts : 240
   Posted 3/31/2009 12:26 PM (GMT -7)   
Dave7: You are right, we are probably biased. But what I tell my friends and relatives is this: In this one particular case, you have the power to save your own life right in your own hands. Why would you not at least check to see if you needed to use that power?

As I've said before, this is not altzheimers' (sp?) where, if they know you have the "gene" you are supposedly going to get it, and once you do there is just not much they can do about it. In this case you can choose to take a variety of actions - or none at all.

It just seems like common sense to me.
My opinion,
kcragman
Age: 53; 52 at DX
March 2006: PSA 2.5
Dec 2007: PSA taken for insurance application. I did not see the results until late
Jan '08 - after I was rejected. Their lab said PSA 4.5.
Feb 2008: PSA 3.7.
March 2008: Biopsy. Gleason 7 (4+3) 12 cores taken. 5 on the left side were
cancerous and the 6th was suspect.
May 5, 2008: Da Vinci robotic laparoscopy at GW Hospital, Washington DC.

Post op: Gleason 9 (4+5). 15% of prostate involved. Stage: pT3a. Negative margins. Lymph node and nerve samples taken, and appeared to be cancer free.

July 2008: PSA at 7 weeks was undetectable.
August 2008: PSA at 14 weeks (3 months) was undetectable.
Nov 2008: PSA at 6 months was undetectable.
Feb 2009: PSA at 9 months was undetectable.


Purgatory
Elite Member


Date Joined Oct 2008
Total Posts : 25353
   Posted 3/31/2009 12:51 PM (GMT -7)   
We are still talking about 30,000 men directly dying a year from PC, and that doesn't count the thousands of advanced cases that will take their places in the statistics further down stream. I can only speak for myself. I volunteered to start getting my PSA drawn at my yearly physicals at age 50, because that is what the common wisdom was at the time. I never had it earlier than 50, because there was no known cases of PC on either side of my family, at least not dx. Had I not been taking it yearly, and then ultimately it tripled and ended up with my dx. last August, I would have never known I had an agressive killer inside me. With no prostate trouble symptons, no other weird symptons going on, never would have known until ultimately it would have been too late, or at the best, a very advanced case. A biopsy is somewhat expensive, I can see not taking biopsies without good cause or reason, but to include PSA testing as part of an annual blood work test only makes common sense to me. It's not going to hurt any man to have a baseline PSA done, even at age 40, just to have a reference point. All I am saying, that without my own common sense at being tested on my own, having a good GP that was monitoring me closely, and having regular PSA tests, I very well may have been in a future group of dead 30,000 men from prostate cancer.

David in SC
Age 56, 56 at DX, PSA 7/7 5.8, 7/8 12.3,9/8 14.5
3rd Biopsy Sept 08: Positive 7 of 7 cores, 40-90%, Gleason 7, 4+3
Open RP surgery 11/14/8, Right nerves spared, 4 days hospital, staples out 11/24/8, 5th cath out on 1/19/9
Post-surgery Pathlogy Report:Gleason 3+4=7, pT2c, 42 grm, tumor 20%, Contained in capsular, clear margins, clear lymph nodes 
First PSA Post Surgery   2/9 .05, 6 month on 5/9
 
 


mirv
Regular Member


Date Joined Nov 2008
Total Posts : 30
   Posted 3/31/2009 2:50 PM (GMT -7)   
David I am with you 100% on this one. My GP followed the protocol of not testing PSA and so I never knew what it was or what mine was. He still doesn't believe it has relevance for the average man in his 40's or 50's unless there is some obvious reason to check it. I was referred to a urologist for a different issue who DID have it checked and that's when the whole saga of my PCa began. After being told by my surgeon that waiting one more year may have allowed the cancer to escape the prostate (positive margins) I am extremely grateful that my original urologist had such particular standards about when to test and when to biopsy. Isn't it obvious that in the absence of testing the number of late stage cancers is only going to increase? Even if you believe that overtreatment is rampant (which I don't necessarily), just the fact of knowing your own personal PSA number does not mean that you HAVE to have treatment, and it does give you information that will tell you whether you should check things out more definitively or not. My uncle who has melanoma, as well as my wife who has breast cancer would both love to have a simple blood test that could give them some idea of the relative condition of the diseases they have, and that if administered earlier in life may have let them fight these diseases sooner. I don't understand how anyone could know of the gift of PSA and not want to use it to find this cancer early, when it can still be successfully fought.
Age 52
PSA 3.1 fPSA 26% Dx: 11-07-08
1 of 12 cores with 5% adenocarcinoma
11 of 12 cores clear Gleason grade 3+3=6
Robotic laproscopic surgery 2-4-09
Dr. Garret Matsunaga, Torrance Memorial Hosp.
Free hernia repair! 2 day stay.
Pathology: pT2c NXMX
upgraded to 3+4=7 and <2% tertiary 5
negative margins
negative extraprostatic extension
negative seminal vesicle invasion


down not out
Regular Member


Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 25
   Posted 3/31/2009 5:00 PM (GMT -7)   
I can say without doubt a PSA test probably saved my life. I had no symptoms, was not enlarged, routine part of a physical forced on me by my wife. The logic isn't there not to test, it may not be conclusive, but it is another tool,  a non-invasive one at that.
Open retropubic prostatectomy 12-15-2008
Catheter removed 2 weeks later, no leakage problems
Margins clear, nodes clean
Return to work 6 weeks post-op
Resumed regular workout routine 8 weeks post-op
Taking Cialis daily
Age  55
pre-surgery PSA 9.04
3 month post-op PSA 0.07


pa69
Regular Member


Date Joined Mar 2009
Total Posts : 260
   Posted 3/31/2009 7:17 PM (GMT -7)   
Although I had been having symptoms I was lulled into believing it was just an enlarged prostrate due to aging. My GP performed a DRE and said it felt soft and smooth. Not likely to be cancerous. He said because of its size it might be a good idea to get a PSA test, but he felt that it probably wasn't important.

Imagine my surprise when the PSA test results came back with a reading of 7.8! Without the PSA test results I got I would have never been referred to a urologist and I never would have considered getting a biopsy, which of course led to surgery and my current situation.

Where would I be in the next few months if I didn't have the surgery? I can't really say for sure, but based on my stats it didn't look good. The PSA test was the tipping point for further investigation which turned out to be absolutely necessary.

I can only reiterate what others have said, the PSA test is a simple test that can provide additional information to help decide what the next course of action should be.

My first post-op PSA test was undetectable. My next is coming up in a couple of weeks. Whew!

Bob
Age 69, First ever PSA 7.8 taken June 2008, Biopsy July 2008, 10 of 12 cores positive, Gleason 3+3=6
da Vinci surgery December 10, 2008, catheter removed December 29 2008
St. Lukes Hospital, Bethlehem, Pa.
Dr. Frank Tamarkin

Prostate weight 73.0 grams, Gleason 3+3=6, stage pT3a
Tumor locations: right anterior apex, right posterior apex to mid
left anterior mid to base, left posterior apex to mid
extensive perineural invasion in right anterior apex, right and left posterior apex to mid
seminal vesicles negative

First post PSA < .1 Jan 16 2009


mspt98
Regular Member


Date Joined Dec 2008
Total Posts : 369
   Posted 3/31/2009 8:30 PM (GMT -7)   
smhair  The AARP article just puts salt in my wound I can tell you. So here's the deal, 30,000 men die from prostate cancer each year but the studies show no improvement for 10 year survival whether or not you have PSA testing. So my brothers that means it doesn't matter if we do surgery, radiation, cryo, proton, HIFU, salvage radiation, or chemo. It changes nothing.  It means if you get prostate cancer either you're going to die of prostate cancer or you aren't regardless of what you do.  No treatment helps statistically. It means the gleason scoring on the biopsy or stage is meaningless because nothing we do affects our final outcome, we are doomed to live or die from prostate ca without any control over this disease.  So lets forget about PSA testing all together. I am super pissed about this conclusion since I am now impotent and have to have injections for sex (I guess for absolutely no point) but there it is. If somebody else has another take on these numbers I'd love to hear it.......................BIG mistake looking for prostate cancer, better to not be tested
my age=52 when all this happened,
DRE=negative
PSA went from 1.9 to 2.85 in one year, urologist ordered biopsy,
First biopsy on 03/08, "suspicious for cancer but not diagnostic"
Second biopsy on 08/14/08, 2/12 cores positive for Prostate Cancer on R side, 1 core=5% Ca, other core = 25% Ca, Gleason Score= 3+3=6 both cores,
Clinical Stage T1C
 
Bilateral nerve sparing Robotic Surgery on 09/11/08, pathological stage T2A at surgery,
No signs of spread, organ contained,
First post-op PSA=.01 on 10/15/08,
Second post-op PSA <.01 on 01/15/09,
Incontinence gone in early December '08,
ED remains, using daily Viagra and 2x/wk bimix/trimix injections for penile rehab


Tim G
Veteran Member


Date Joined Jul 2006
Total Posts : 2268
   Posted 3/31/2009 8:51 PM (GMT -7)   
Statistics can prove anything.  I think it is irresponsible to conclude from  recent studies that men should not be PSA tested.
 
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, dam'ned lies and statistics.   Mark Twain
 
The most outrageous lies that can be invented will find believers if a man only tells them with all his might.                                         Mark Twain

 


 


PSA quadrupled in 1 yr (0.6 to 2.5)  
DRE neg  1 of 12 biopsies pos (< 5%) 
Open surgery June 06 at age 57
Organ confined to one small area Gleason 5   
PSA's undetectable  < 0.1  


Bob D
Regular Member


Date Joined Mar 2008
Total Posts : 199
   Posted 3/31/2009 8:53 PM (GMT -7)   
Whoever wrote that information for AARP is an idiot and should be fired. I am sick and tired
of the media downplaying the PSA test. Is it perfect? No but it has sure saved millions of men
including me. Next AARP will tell everyone not to get cholesterol tests and blood tests for diabetes.
I was considering joining AARP but after hearing this I must question the decision to join.

    1. Age 59, psa 4.7 in Jan. 08. Biopsy: one positive sample out of 13. 1% of one sample cancer. Prostate removed on 3/5/08. Open Surgery. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Gainesville Ga. Nerves spared. Cath out 12 days later. Continence good. No pads needed since 6/10/08. First PSA: Less than 0.1 on 6/17/08. First erection five days post op and have been improving well since then. Full erection now possible (less than four months post op) with the assistance of Cialis.  Post Op Biopsy : No malignant cells in lymph node. Gleason 3=4=7. Tumor on both lobes. Urethral margins/apex free of neoplasia. Right and left seminal vesicles free of neoplasia. No invasion of prostatic capsule of the resection margins are noted by the tumor. Tumor occupies 10 to15% of the prostate gland. Path staging T2c, NO, MX- Group staging II.  Focal areas of perineural invasion by tumor are noted. 80% natural erections and full erections with 10mg Cialis. 9/22/08-Took 10mg Cialis on Monday night, had very usable full hard erection at night, the next morning, and the following Thursday morning, 60 hours after original dose !! Orgasm quality Excellent.!!!!! I am pleased with the progress so far. Married to same wonderful woman for 39 years. She is still beautiful and sexy as ever. A great help in my recovery !!: 3/12/09: Full natural erections with penetration. 10mg Cialis makes them easier to maintain but I have had several med free full erections lately, Yipieeee !!!!!!!  3/24/09: One year PSA <0.1.  3/28 & 3/29: had sex with full naturals with no meds. Erections are gained and maintained with very little manipulation. Getting more like pre op every day.


Bob D
Regular Member


Date Joined Mar 2008
Total Posts : 199
   Posted 3/31/2009 9:01 PM (GMT -7)   
Yea well, now with the old congress and our new leader we will have "free" health care and I will be able to dump my $12,000 a year health insurance premiums. In my dreams.
realziggy said...
lifeguyd said...
Purgatory said...

P.S. I don't understand, it's almost like anti-PSA testing campaign going on in the media now, where before, there was a lot of push. The PSA test, we all know, is a simple, quick, blood test, non-invasive as far as I am concerned.

This is the same AARP who's support help pass a "flawed" Medicare part D legislation. Those laws were set up to provide millions, maybe billions of dollars in excess profit for the insurance and pharmaceutical Giants. While I appreciate some help with my drug costs, the plan was set up to benefit big business, not poor retirees. It never would have passed in that form without AARP support.


I too wonder about the irresponsible reporting regarding PSA tests. 30,000 lives a year is worth something.


It made no difference Dave, that was the bill passed through a republican congress. This was the same congress that forbid medicare negotiating a volume discount from the drug companies like the VA does. With ascent of a democratic congress in 2006 one of the first bills passed was correcting that scheme. The original bill would've passed without aarp support.



    1. Age 59, psa 4.7 in Jan. 08. Biopsy: one positive sample out of 13. 1% of one sample cancer. Prostate removed on 3/5/08. Open Surgery. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Gainesville Ga. Nerves spared. Cath out 12 days later. Continence good. No pads needed since 6/10/08. First PSA: Less than 0.1 on 6/17/08. First erection five days post op and have been improving well since then. Full erection now possible (less than four months post op) with the assistance of Cialis.  Post Op Biopsy : No malignant cells in lymph node. Gleason 3=4=7. Tumor on both lobes. Urethral margins/apex free of neoplasia. Right and left seminal vesicles free of neoplasia. No invasion of prostatic capsule of the resection margins are noted by the tumor. Tumor occupies 10 to15% of the prostate gland. Path staging T2c, NO, MX- Group staging II.  Focal areas of perineural invasion by tumor are noted. 80% natural erections and full erections with 10mg Cialis. 9/22/08-Took 10mg Cialis on Monday night, had very usable full hard erection at night, the next morning, and the following Thursday morning, 60 hours after original dose !! Orgasm quality Excellent.!!!!! I am pleased with the progress so far. Married to same wonderful woman for 39 years. She is still beautiful and sexy as ever. A great help in my recovery !!: 3/12/09: Full natural erections with penetration. 10mg Cialis makes them easier to maintain but I have had several med free full erections lately, Yipieeee !!!!!!!  3/24/09: One year PSA <0.1.  3/28 & 3/29: had sex with full naturals with no meds. Erections are gained and maintained with very little manipulation. Getting more like pre op every day.

Post Edited (Bob D) : 3/31/2009 10:06:05 PM (GMT-6)


Cedar Chopper
Regular Member


Date Joined Mar 2007
Total Posts : 432
   Posted 4/1/2009 3:58 AM (GMT -7)   

 

Friends,

I just posted this note to Tony's (TC-LasVegas') site. 
Swimom's brief note says it best:
Such irresponsible use of data can be a death sentence.

Mr. Tony & Ms. Ruthie,

I just read an article in the latest Newsweek using all these "studies" to trash all screening for Breast & Prostrate Cancer - and impuning many other cancer treatments.
All of this based on studies with questionable statistical significance for anyone planning to live more than ten years.
The insurance companies are certainly eating this up as their eye$ $ee dollar $igns for all the expense$ they can avoid as they push any stage three cancers that might have been prevented into the realm of 65 year old patients on Medicare.
I wrote Newsweek that - based on their eager endorsement of this position with such a (not just incomplete and skewed - but REALLY) slanted collection of data - I wrote that their editors should  not be allowed any testing or informed options for cancer treatment until they are 65 and dependent on the Government "legacy" program.
Tony & Ruth - Keep fighting the good fight.  Keep running the good race.  God Bless You for your kindness and concern.

Cedar

ICTHUS!
CCedar


2 Years of PSA between 4 and 5.5  + Biopsy 23DEC06 
Only 5 percent cancer in one of 8 samples.  +  Gleeson 3+3=6
OPEN R P 16FEB07 at age 54. 1+" tumor - touching inside edge of gland.  + Confined:)
Pad Free @ 14 weeks.  PSA: 6 mths <.003  :)   9mths & 1 Yr.<.008
:)
18mths & 2 Yr <.008 :)  
  5 Year Colonoscopy 19FEB08:  Clear!
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2 
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, February 19, 2018 11:12 PM (GMT -7)
There are a total of 2,931,100 posts in 321,597 threads.
View Active Threads


Who's Online
This forum has 160335 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, Mrjambu61.
299 Guest(s), 8 Registered Member(s) are currently online.  Details
.1nana, Chotti, Mrjambu61, Scaredy Cat, mpost, Sherrine, CatLady18, shadowsfall47