Well I saw my urologist yesterday. For my every six month check up. Slightly disappointing, but I suppose not too bad all things considered. I had been hoping to regain my < sign(hope springs eternal), after having lost it followed by two readings over one year of .01. But instead of sinking back down, I registered a 0.02. This is at a little over the three-year mark. Though naturally I want to at a minimum hold steady or even better go back down, considering that I was a Gleason 9, had one small(foci) positive surgical margin, and to top it all off was positive for seminal vesicle invasion, I guess .02 is really not all that bad for three years out, considering I only had surgery so far.
The urologist I go to have their own lab machines on site, so I got my results shortly after they drew the blood, before I talked to the urologist. Naturally he was very pleased with the results, seeming totally unimpressed by the rise to .02. He went on to discuss the small variations in results that they see at these ultra low levels that is more due to calibration variations in the machine then it is due to an actual rise or decrease of .01. Still, considering that I was less than .01 for about
18 months, and then .01 for one year(two readings six months apart) and now 18 months after losing my < sign I am .02, it seems to me it is more likely an actual slow climb rather than machine variation. Regardless, I am now back on three month checks, So I will be checked again in June. Still, according to him, it's still a rather big positive boding well that I have stayed this low for this long considering my surgical pathology. He said it is far more likely that I would have already had an official BCR by this time considering my pathology, so I am really beating the odds so far. I think I'm going to agree with him and go ahead and celebrate this number.
We had a good talk, and I discussed my shock three years ago when my surgeon from Vanderbilt(Joseph Smith) called me on the phone to give my pathology results. As he told me about
the positive margin and seminal vesicle invasion, I was kind of shocked by his answer to my question"Okay, what's next", as his answer was "nothing". I was expecting to hear something like how we would be doing radiation in a few months. But no, in his opinion we should do nothing until there was evidence of a steadily rising PSA. Which was doubly shocking considering that they did not do ultra sensitive testing, thus they (and I) would not even know about
this rise from .01 to 02. But, looks like that was the right decision so far in my case, as it has bought me three years with no extra treatment, so far. Then, we(my local URO and I) veered off somehow into an interesting discussion of Gleason 6. But I think I will discuss that in a separate thread. For now, I'll celebrate that I remain at 2 millionths of gram per ml, which is still not that other number of >.03 (is it > or = to .03 that is a concern for some? I can't recall). Where is my Cabernet?
PSA 10.9 ~112013
Bx on 112013 at age ~65yrs, with 5 of 12 pos with one G9(5+4), 1 PNI, T2B.
RALP with lymph nodes at Vanderbilt 021914. (nodes clear, SV+, G9 down graded to 4+5, cut wide, but 1 tiny foci right at the edge of margin ) Pros. 106.7 gms!
At 15 months, not wearing a pad most days, mostly dry
PSA <.01 on 6/14 and all until 9/15, up to .01, still .01 9/16
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/28/2017 12:39:37 PM (GMT-6)