Hi lovely people!
Just a quickie- hubby has in the last year had prostatectomy, HT injections (ongoing) and radiotherapy. Gleason 9, and he's only 48, so they went in guns blazing to get best chance of cure. It had spread to one pelvic lymph node at time of surgery and seminal vesicles and bladder neck, so locally advanced but nothing outside of pelvic area.
Has since had 2 PSA six monthly tests, first after surgery which was undetectable, and now another after radiotherapy which the surgeon said 'it is the same as before- undetectable at 0.1' ???????????????
We were told it was undetectable after surgery, but didn't know the figure. So now we know both readings were 0.1, which they are terming 'undetectable' but how can it be undetectable when they can detect something??!! to me, it still seems a bit high after surgery and radiotherapy? (original PSA was 46).
Can anyone offer any clarity? We see oncologist on Wednesday, so I will of course be asking her as I am confused.
Thanks in advance x
'Sorrow looks back, worry looks around, but faith looks up' |
User
Undetectable is anything under 0.2
It may be that at your hospital, 0.1 is the lowest score they will report on as the test is to 1 decimal place and so really, the result is <0.1 (less than). Some of the scores you see on here are from people who are having ultra-sensitive tests which go to 2 or even 3 decimal places but it is still undetectable in the eyes of the NHS.
Just to give you a sense of why you shouldn't be concerned at the 0.1 result, women (with no prostate) can have a PSA of around 0.05 but it rises to around 0.1 after orgasm - breast milk has significant amounts of PSA (I think I read 0.5 in a research report?) and women with breast cancer can have an even higher result. PSA isn't only produced by the prostate - small amounts are also produced by other glands which is why you hardly ever see anyone with a zero reading.
Generally, I find that doctors don't lie so I hope the onco is able to reassure you
Edited by member 10 Nov 2015 at 00:29
| Reason: Not specified
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
High Peter
You are essentially a carbon copy of my case , except I had 5 nodes involved and bladder neck also . My post surgery was 1.5 which has risen to 2.4 prior to RT which I may have in Jan. Not really made my mind up yet . Im on HT in the meantime. I get your question on the undetectable bit , but its sounding great to me . I hope they have cured you.
We have a little child too :-))
Chris
Edited by member 10 Nov 2015 at 08:31
| Reason: Not specified
Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Undetectable is anything under 0.2
It may be that at your hospital, 0.1 is the lowest score they will report on as the test is to 1 decimal place and so really, the result is <0.1 (less than). Some of the scores you see on here are from people who are having ultra-sensitive tests which go to 2 or even 3 decimal places but it is still undetectable in the eyes of the NHS.
Just to give you a sense of why you shouldn't be concerned at the 0.1 result, women (with no prostate) can have a PSA of around 0.05 but it rises to around 0.1 after orgasm - breast milk has significant amounts of PSA (I think I read 0.5 in a research report?) and women with breast cancer can have an even higher result. PSA isn't only produced by the prostate - small amounts are also produced by other glands which is why you hardly ever see anyone with a zero reading.
Generally, I find that doctors don't lie so I hope the onco is able to reassure you
Edited by member 10 Nov 2015 at 00:29
| Reason: Not specified
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
hi lyneye
I just love your mind full of knowledge xx
nidge
run long and prosper
'pooh how do you spell love' 'piglet you dont spell love -you just feel it' |
User
High Peter
You are essentially a carbon copy of my case , except I had 5 nodes involved and bladder neck also . My post surgery was 1.5 which has risen to 2.4 prior to RT which I may have in Jan. Not really made my mind up yet . Im on HT in the meantime. I get your question on the undetectable bit , but its sounding great to me . I hope they have cured you.
We have a little child too :-))
Chris
Edited by member 10 Nov 2015 at 08:31
| Reason: Not specified
User
Hi Chris,
Just read your profile.Sorry to hear about what you've been going through, too. Yes, lots of similarities between Pete and you!
Personally, I think you should definitely go for radiotherapy. At surgery, the surgeon knew he was cutting through cancer, and we were told that only using HT would result in a bigger chance of significant recurrance 2-3 years down the line.With radiotherapy they hope to 'zap' the remaining cells, even the microscopic ones which the surgery couldn't reach, and they also can target the lymph nodes. There are various experience of radiotherapy, but Pete managed to get though the highest doses with very minimal side effects, he just remains very very fatigued at the minute, but that happens with HT anyway.It's just to encourage you really, to perhaps really seriously consider RT.
All the best!
'Sorrow looks back, worry looks around, but faith looks up' |
User
Thanks so much for your post. It means a lot to me. Needing help at the moment on this journey ......
Chris
User
I am hell to live with and rubbish at pub quizzes but if you ever need to know what was agreed in a team meeting in 1997, I am your woman
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|