Sorry I cannot answer your questions. But I did have two items of related info to pass on:
(1) at my yearly uro appt. last month, Dec. 2018, I discussed possibility of getting a gene test done for me. My uro had brought it up in 2013 about
a year after my RALP, but I declined then due to cost we could not handle. In the recent appt., he told me the tissue degrades after 3 years so I can no longer get the gene tests, like Decipher.
(2) On your sig line for your friend:
"11/5/12 0.2 (no “<” in EMR but assume it was dropped in transcript
ion from paper chart)"
My uro told me my Dec. 2018 standard PSA test of .1 could actually be anywhere between .050 and .149. He said the test just rounds, or truncates, that way. He said it only will print out as <.1, .1, .2, .3, etc. I had happened to "uPSA test" myself the week before I did my annual blood draw for his standard PSA test. My uPSA showed .048, so I calculate my real PSA was really about
.052 a week later when I did the blood draw for him. He and I have had several "discussions" about
standard vs ultrasensitive testing. So we have agreed to disagree. He does his test. I do mine.
Anyway, your friend's lab test could actually have shown with no "<". If his blood level was actually .150 or slightly above, and his doc at that time was using the same kind of standard PSA my uro uses, your friend's result would have printed as .2, and that would not have been transcript
ion error but just the way standard psa works.
"Let's not give the patient accurate data, because maybe he/she cannot handle the real data". That is so stupid.
Jan '08-'11 PSAs 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.6, DREs-
Jan '12: PSA 3.6, DRE+
Jan '12: MRI inconclusive
Feb '12: PCaDx pT2a, 4/12+ (3 @ 3+3, 1 @ 4+3); 3% tot cores; bone scan-
Apr '12: RALP; 3+4=7; pT2c pN0 pMx; 30%; 3mm r lat margin of 3+3=6 so pT2+; EPE-; PNI+; 8 LN-; SV-
TRT 03/'14-now; uPSAs: <.015 til 02/17; mostly .020-.030; then .048 on 12/1/18
Post Edited (Bobbiesan) : 1/19/2019 6:02:14 AM (GMT-7)