I'm interested in conversations about and I want to talk about
Know exactly what you want?
Show search

Notification

Error
<12

PSA. after surgery.

User
Posted 18 Feb 2022 at 12:30

Thank you so much Soren. 

Yes, my PSA blood tests are all conducted by the same lab each time. I ask my local GP surgery for a digital copy of the blood result so there's no misunderstanding about the number.

I'm keeping my figures crossed that the readings stay low. 

Thank you again for your help. 

Matthew 

User
Posted 22 Feb 2022 at 17:13
My PSA finally reached 0.9 in January meaning a visit to the scanner! Resulted in me now having started on Balcutimide tabs and monthly hormone injections with RT to follow in July. Fortunately PET scan showed no matastasies, so staying as positive as I can cos worrying wont change any outcome in the future!
User
Posted 11 Mar 2022 at 15:36

well...  Just over 1 year after my original post ..

As suspected I did have recurrence..  

So Radiotherapy in December... and HRT  at same time...

Today I had a good call.... 1st PSA test result at Less than 0.1  

So seems to be under control.  HRT for another 1 year and 1/2. and PSA every 3 months.

Feeling good today... will open a beer (or 2) this evening .

User
Posted 15 Mar 2022 at 16:04

Great news for you Berni 👍, any side effects from your treatment I can look forward to?

Rob

User
Posted 15 Jul 2022 at 09:53

I'm awaiting my 6-week post RP Ultra Sensitive PSA results (uPSA), so at after about 200+ hours of research prior to my treatment decision, I find myself taking a deep dive into yet another aspect of this disease - post surgery PSA.  This thread came up in my search results and I'd like help clear things up as it appears this is a subject not easily understood.  Probably due to the varied degrees that Urologists keep up with the latest data, which for the most part is easily accessible to us patients.

There are variances depending on your data source, but the general consensus in the Urologic Medical Community is that Biochemical Recurrence is defined as a reading of => 0.2 followed by a consecutive reading of > 0.2 post surgery.  (For post Radiaton, it's 2.0 above your lowest reading - which can take 2+ years to reach your low.)

The problem is, while studies have shown adjuvant radiotherapy (getting radiation after surgery because you had high Gleason and/or T3 disease, no matter how low your PSA is) does not provide a significant benefit over early salvage radiation therapy. Further recent studies are showing that earlier is better for salvage radiation to maximize the chance it will be curative. This is one of many studies that discuss it if you want to educate yourself as it shows the different Hazard Ratio multipliers for all the different prognostic factors.  Only the Gleason Score higher than 6 has a higher HR than the pre-salvage RT PSA.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9647 (if you're not in the mood to read a long article, check out the second link I reference)

In my opinion, in the context of determining the need and timing for salvage radiation therapy, any Oncologist that wants to still "wait and see" when you've hit 0.1 is not up to date on the latest research. 

There's tons of recent data out there.  This article best sums it up in the Risk Factor Score Chart.  As you can see, if you get your salvage RT super early, at 0.05, you only add 2.5 to the score. O.1 is only 2.5 more points.  But as you go up to 0.2, now you are adding 5 points and have quadrupled from the 0.05 level. If you wait until your PSA reaches 1 to get your salvage radiation, you add a whopping 50 points to the score.

https://prostatecancerinfolink.net/2016/08/25/probability-of-remaining-recurrence-free-after-salvage-radiation/

In many cases you could go from a 0.05 to 0.1 or 0.2 in between PSA tests and then there will be a lead time before you can actually get treatment.  So it turns out, predicting very early on with high confidence if you are going to very likely have a recurrence can be critical to maximize the chance your salvage radiation will be curative.

"...first post-op uPSA ≥0.03, Gleason grade, and T-stage independently predicted cBCR. First post-op uPSA ≥0.03 conferred the highest risk (HR 8.5, p<0.0001)... Defining failure at uPSA ≥0.03 yielded a median lead-time advantage of 18 months (mean 24 months) over the conventional PSA ≥0.2 definition... "

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527538/

"In men with a PSA <0.1 ng/mL following RP, a ten-fold lower cutoff (0.01 ng/mL) stratified BCR-free survival and was a significant independent predictor of BCR as were pathological features."

https://www.practiceupdate.com/content/ultrasensitive-psa-measurements-may-predict-long-term-biochemical-recurrence-free-survival-following-radical-prostatectomy/29264

And as you can see from this study, the number of patients that were free from biochemical recurrence at 4 years was ZERO if their initial uPSA reading was => 0.02!  In both high-risk and low/intermediate NCCN risks groups.

https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/47/1/74/2527621

So from the data, we know, that if you have an initial uPSA after surgery of 0.02 you have a very high chance of biochemical recurrence - not for sure, but likely.  If your uPSA is up to double that and goes up to 0.04 from there, you pretty much plan on a recurrence.  Combine that with knowing your chances of salvage therapy being curative starts to significantly decline if you get your salvage therapy when your PSA has gone over 0.2.  If your doubling times are long, then you have plenty of time to watch it creep up and get your salvage radiation scheduled before you hit a PSA of 0.2 but if your double times are short, then you probably want to be calling your Radiotherapy Oncologist when your PSA has hit => 0.04.

Waiting to make treatment decisions until you've hit an "old school" number of 0.2 defining "official" biochemical recurrence is not best practice these days based on the latest data.  That is, if you want to maximize the chance you can still be cured.

 

 

Edited by member 15 Jul 2022 at 21:58  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 15 Jul 2022 at 22:13

I just got back my 6-week post op PSA results. < 0.02. I had asked if I could get the test done anywhere and they said yes as long as it's ultransensitive. I love the lab at my PCP's clinic. It's a state of the art facility and all my blood draws are 5 min in and out including parking. So I asked my PCP to put in an order for an Ultrasensitive PSA test. He provided the details of the test, it's Abbott Chemiluminescent Microparticle
Immunoassay (CMIA) methodology. I didn't run this past my Urologist at the other institution as I assumed it was ultrasensitive. Well this is why my PCP is not a Urologist. As obviously it's not ultrasensitive if it only goes to 2 decimal places.

Strangely I contacted my Urologists office and told them the results and test type and they said that it was fine and I could keep using that same test as all they need to see is a < sign in front of my result. This was odd as my Urologist is one of the top Researchers in the world regarding PCa and is up on all the latest info. I read about the ultrasensitive tests and that studies found a PSA >= 0.01 is highly predictive of recurrence (combined with other pathological factors). Did my Urologists assistant make a mistake in their response? I thought he would want to see the 6-month kinetics between 6-week and 12-week post-op to at least the 3 decimal so he could see (a) if I was below 0.01 to begin with and (b) if my PSA moved up, by how much, even if it was under 0.02.

Then I started to think... I read somewhere that other things other than cancer can cause PSA to fluctuate as much as 0.01 to 0.02. Even women can have small amounts of PSA. So imagine the potential anxiety you cause a patient when they see their PSA bouncing around over the years between 0.005 and 0.015 using ultrasensitive tests when that could just be non-PCa related fluctuations and nothing to worry about. Combine this with the fact no Urologist/Oncologist is going to start even discussing salvage treatment planning until you probably hit 0.04. And the studies are all over the map on cut off for predicting chance of recurrence (0.03, 0.02, 0.01, 0.008 as I mentioned before). My own opinion is that 0.02 is a good level with high confidence.

I had a great post-op pathology report. No Gleason upgrade (still 3+4 with about 15% grade 4), no positive margins, no seminal vesicle or lymph node invasion. So that combined with a PSA result < 0.02 really puts my mind at ease. However, I think I would like to know if that <0.02 is also < 0.01 - but the benefit in doing that the more I think about it is questionable. What if it comes back as 0.012? Is that just going to unnecessarily stress me out as even > 0.1 combined with my other factors, I still statistically have a low chance of recurrence. Definitely if I get an ultrasensitive next time around, after that, I really don't want to know my score unless it hits 0.02 anything below 0.04 is really unactionable and just has the potential to cause me undue stress possibly caused by fluctuations not having to do with PCa progression.

Is there much utility though to an Ultrasensitive test when you otherwise have good Pathology results?

Edited by member 15 Jul 2022 at 22:28  | Reason: Not specified

User
Posted 15 Jul 2022 at 23:30

Jaz, take a breath and relax, you PSA is what it is. I had the two decimal point test, it gave me a good indication that my PSA was slowly rising, I had a poor histology.  At some hospitals my PSA would have been classified as undetectable for 23 months, at 26 months I would have told , sorry your cancer is probably coming back.

Two vials of blood taken at the same time and tested at the same time in the same lab came back with a difference of 0.01.

Relax look after yourself and don't worry about things you can't influence. Are you in the USA, there are differences in how different countries operate.

Hope you recovery goes well .

Thanks Chris 

User
Posted 15 Jul 2022 at 23:59

Thanks Chris. I have since confirmed that I did indeed get an ultrasensitive test.  The regular test's lowest reading is < 0.1 not < 0.02.  Each lab can have a different cutoff. Some may have a < 0.01 cutoff.  Based on the fact PSA can fluctuation 0.01-0.02 and having nothing to do with Prostate Cancer, I would prefer to not see results beyond two decimals and/or under 0.02.  

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member

Jaz, take a breath and relax, you PSA is what it is. I had the two decimal point test, it gave me a good indication that my PSA was slowly rising, I had a poor histology.  At some hospitals my PSA would have been classified as undetectable for 23 months, at 26 months I would have told , sorry your cancer is probably coming back.

Two vials of blood taken at the same time and tested at the same time in the same lab came back with a difference of 0.01.

Relax look after yourself and don't worry about things you can't influence. Are you in the USA, there are differences in how different countries operate.

Hope you recovery goes well .

Thanks Chris 

User
Posted 16 Jul 2022 at 07:57
Hi jazj, Radicals has proven zero benefit for early salvage therapy before 0.2 I believe tempered by G score and I suspect PET detectable disease.

Upshot is going before 0.1 in most cases has no benefit.

User
Posted 16 Jul 2022 at 12:19

This was odd as my Urologist is one of the top Researchers in the world regarding PCa and is up on all the latest info. 

That's a big clue - trust your specialist rather than all the papers you have been finding on Google. 

 I read about the ultrasensitive tests and that studies found a PSA >= 0.01 is highly predictive of recurrence (combined with other pathological factors) 

No reliable research would suggest such a thing. Post-op PSA >=0.1 is highly predictive but not >=0.01 

Combine this with the fact no Urologist/Oncologist is going to start even discussing salvage treatment planning until you probably hit 0.04

That may be true in the US where there is possibly a commercial consideration but in the UK, they would usually consider salvage treatment at 0.2 or after 3 successive rises above 0.1 - the exception being if pathology was poor and / or a scan finds evidence of recurrence below 0.1

 

 

 

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 16 Jul 2022 at 12:32

And as you can see from this study, the number of patients that were free from biochemical recurrence at 4 years was ZERO if their initial uPSA reading was => 0.02! In both high-risk and low/intermediate NCCN risks groups.

https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/47/1/74/2527621

Sorry Jazj, some of the assertions in your posts are either confused or misrepresented and could cause unnecessary anxiety. For example, the report you quote here is specifically related to men with positive margins, not all men. Plus it was done in 2017 and other more recent research has usurped it.

A couple of the research papers you quote use a different scale as well so when making comparisons, make sure you are comparing like for like (ng/ml)

Edited by member 16 Jul 2022 at 12:36  | Reason: Not specified

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard

User
Posted 18 Jul 2022 at 19:24

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
Hi jazj, Radicals has proven zero benefit for early salvage therapy before 0.2 I believe tempered by G score and I suspect PET detectable disease.
Upshot is going before 0.1 in most cases has no benefit.

This was my conclusion also after reading all the studies although there is controversy (not a wide body of data) in the 0.1-0.2 range.  As the nomogram showed though, the decrease in chance of cure going from 0.05 to 0.1 to 0.2 could be considered negligible in the context of the importance of the other pathological features (mainly Gleason and positive margins) that should also be considered.  I think the important thing is the ultrasensitive test can help you keep an eye on how fast things are rising starting at 0.05 and then factor in scheduling lead time as to not over shoot 0.2 too far on salvage timing.

The studies have shown the sensitivity of the PSMA PET Scan below PSA of 0.5 is low.  I imagine some Oncologists may still order it if you are at a 0.2-0.4 to rule out any macrometastases outside the prostate bed to target. But at that low of a PSA it's not going to catch everything so I see it only as a way for the hospital and Pylarify maker  to make more money off the insurance company as opposed to having a high chance of producing new actionable information.

 

 

 
Forum Jump  
<12
©2024 Prostate Cancer UK