Only a minor slip up on my part, but I'm going to mention it to prove the point that you need to take your time to study what you get told and what is in all the lab reports etc, because I have discovered today that I have not been practicing what I preach.
My first test results back in March 2009 were sent from the lab to my GP by computer. When I saw her she read stuff off the screen and told me about
the PSA, but never mentioned free PSA. I did not get given a copy iof the lab report at that stage.
I was referred to a uro who did more bloods and urines and also gave me a biopsy, but he never mentioned free PSA. The biopsy found the PCa and he referred me to another surgeon as he did not do da Vinci surgery. In his letter of referral he mentioned my free PSA, and stapled to the letter was the results of the biospy and the full print out of the original lab report which also mentioned the free PSA. I was given copies of the letter and the lab reports but I never noticed the mention of free PSA.
It was only today, some 16 months later that I actually noticed the mention of my free PSA when I was rereading the letter to check a date.
I'm just glad I didn't fail to spot something more important, though having now done the relevant calculations etc. it was pretty clear that the numbers were telling everyone that I was likely to have PCa (my PSA was 8.6 with a Free PSA of 0.9 giving a percentage of less than 10)
PS Of course I should point out that I live in The Netherlands sol the conversations with docs and lab reports and letters etc were in Dutch which does make it a bit harder to be 100% sure about
everything first time round.
Post Edited (English Alf) : 9/27/2010 9:17:51 AM (GMT-6)