BillyMac, the <.014 is what was reported on my VA hospital test a year ago. The doctor told me that meant my PSA was below the detectability threshold of the equipment, so that means .014 is the lowest the equipment can detect. Seems like an odd number to me as well, but that's what it says.
This year's test was done by the same VA hospital, so I assume (but can't be certain) that it was done by the same lab. This year they reported .053, and the doctor said that meant it was now detectable. That's consistent, since it's much higher than the equipment's detectability limit of .014. But this illustrates the problem with definition of undetectability. From what I've read, <0.1 is the standard definition of undetectable, probably defined with earlier equipment that could not read below that. Now, with ultrasensitive tests, you could say the PSA is detectable as far as the equipment is concerned (as in my case) but not detectable by the standard definition. I'm kind of a stickler too, and would like to see different words used, maybe "below sensitivity limit" for the former, and undetectable for the latter.
So the question remains, since 0.05 is detectable by the equipment but below the standard used for detectability, does it indicate a path to BCR? I won't know until the next test, but I can begin preparing in case it does.
I think I have a headache.
PSA: 7 tests over 2 years bounced around from 2.6 to 5.6
Biopsy 8 of 12 positive, Gleason 3+4, T2a
DaVinci August 2009, pathology Gleason 4+3, neg margins, T2c
Continent right away, ED
Viagra, Cialis did't work, Trimix works well
3, month: undetectable <.1; 6 month: undetectable <.014 (ultrasensitive); 9, 12, 15 month: undetectable <.1; 18 month detectable .05