I agree with the other posters although my personal preference is for ultrasensive testing. But if you registered 0.014 (rounded to nearest 2 decimal place and reported as 0.01) and the next test registered 0.016 (again rounded to the nearest 2 decimal place and reported as 0.02) it shows how illusory changes at this level can be. And this is without taking a 20% margin for error into account. Great result so take it easy and relax. Using ultrasensitive it is important to watch for a trend before starting to worry, rather than minor variations. A trend at this level may show 0.01 then 0.02 then 0.04 then 0.06 etc. The constant increase with time could indicate a relapse up to 2 years earlier than the standard test.
4 of 10 cores positive for Adenocarcinoma-------bummer!
Core 1 <5%, core 2----50%, core 3----60%, core 4----50%
Biopsy Pathologist's comment:
Gleason 4+3=7 (80% grade 4) Stage T2c
Neither extracapsular nor perineural invasion is identified
CT scan and Bone scan show no evidence of metastases
Da Vinci RP Aug 10th 2007 Post-op
Positive for perineural invasion and 1 small focal extension
Negative at surgical margins, negative node and negative vesicle involvement
Some 4+4=8 identified ........upgraded to Gleason 8
PSA Oct '07 <0.1 undetectable
PSA Jan '08 <0.1 undetectable
PSA April '08 <0.001 undetectable (disregarded due to lab "misreporting")
PSA August '08 <0.001 undetectable (disregarded due to lab "misreporting"-----it is not possible for any lab to get a reading of less than .003) Post-op pathology rechecked by new lab:
Gleason downgraded to 4+3=7
Focal extension comprised of grade 3 cells
PSA September '08 <0.01 (new lab)
PSA February 09 <0.01
PSA May '10 <0.01www.yananow.net/Mentors/BillM2.htm
Never underestimate old people ............ you don't get to be old by being stupid.
Post Edited (BillyBeans) : 8/20/2010 5:54:33 PM (GMT-6)