This method may still be completely useless, but out of curiosity I did a log slope with your three "detectable" readings. Since the first two are the same, I did a linear fit to the three points. It's a very shallow curve, with a 21 month doubling time. At such a low level, you wouldn't reach the recurrence threshold for post-RP of >0.2 until Aug 2023, six years from now. If you check again in three months, it's likely to still show 0.02 if they only have 2 decimal places of accuracy. Next tick to 0.03 in August 2018.
I don't know. It's a very very shallow slope. Maybe making a mountain out of a molehill (or a shadow of a grain of a molehill!). For what it's worth. I found research by a few who've gone WAY deep into the math, and they usually still come up shrugging their shoulders.
Assuming the numbers reflect some kind of reality, not just test variability, it sure doesn't look like any immediate concern to me. Any measurement has some scatter, and this one's measuring extremely low levels of PSA.
But I don't know what happens with the post-RP approach. Probably they'd prefer to wait until hitting the actual recurrence threshold of 0.2? It'll be interesting to see your PSA in 3 months. My guess is any change will be within the measurement error of the PSA test. Fretting at these levels seems premature.
Oh yeah, Redwing, I was reading about
your log slope calculations on the other thread. I thought that was very interesting, though of course as you say– who really knows? Like you say, probably all we know at the moment is still very low numbers that are slowly increasing–or probably increasing, if it's not the machine. And with my pathology these numbers could be easily 10 times worse, so I'm going to go ahead with the celebration. It will indeed be interesting to see the numbers three months out. These never ending tests with their possible bad results are no fun, bu until further notice I am just going to consider myself doing spectacularly well, even more so considering the entire picture!