I need PSA help

Kitt - It's pretty common knowledge that most urologists advise "less than 0.02 as being "undetectible"!

That was our reading for both of our first two post op PSA tests at 3 months and 6 months. When I said . .what is "undetectible" the doctor said standard measure for that is less than 0.02.

As a cancer patient, post surgery being told it fell between 0 and 2.5 and was deemed "low" would not be acceptable (a rather wide range I'd say.)

I'm thinking your chart from the National Cancer Institute applies to PSA readings prior to cancer diagnosis.

;o) Linda & Bob

---

Bob (60) had laproscopic prostate surgery on Sept 27, 2006 - 2/12 malignant biopsy samples - gleason 3 + 3 = 6. Follow up PSA results and pathology results received Nov 14th are NO MORE CANCER! Gleason changed to a 3 + 4; cancer completely confined to prostate; (even a second more aggressive, previously undetected cancer) PSA UNDETECTABLE November 2006 AND February 2007.


Bob also takes Hydroxyurea to control Polycythemia (elevated red & white cells & platelets) has secondary condition . . Myelofibrosis) -- If anyone has experience or knowledge of these, please post us

"Undetectable" depends on the lab's capability. If its equipment can only measure down to 0.1, then your reading would come back as "undetectable" - from that lab. Your lab is able to measure PSAs below 0.04, therefore, your reading is 0.04, not "undetectable".

-Gordy

Friends,

I start my Micro PSA's soon.  This thread has been very helpful.

I feel the physician should have said "statistically insignificant." 

For more meaningful interpretation, such small numbers scaled in the bottom 2% of "Low" (.04/2.5 < 2% - Thanks Kitt) should include the "variance" such a machine expereinces every time it examines the same sample.

Swim's point about a number moving up seems the most relevant.

Thanks everyone.

C^Cedar