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

Notification

Error

First PSA test results after surgery

Email this conversation Print this conversation
User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 13:42

Hi All,

I've just had my first PSA test results today following surgery 3 months ago.  The resultant score was 0.06 which I'm told fits into the low but detectable range with the threshold level for concern being 0.2. I was really hoping for an undetectable level so am relieved but slightly disappointed.

I'm really curious what level most people get following surgery and wondered if people might like to share their results.

Thanks

Nick.

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 14:06

Nick, mine was <0.06 3 months after surgery. Are you sure that the 'less than' sign has not been omitted? Have you seen the actual lab report yourself? There have been several reported occasions when admin staff miss out the 'less than' sign.

Peter

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 17:58

Hi again, mate.

As you say, ideally your results would have been undetectable but 0.06 is still low. Have you had your post op histology report yet?

What was your finally cancer staging, was the disease prostate confined. What was your final Gleason score and did you have positive or negative margins?

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 19:58

Hi Wingers

My histology post prostatectomy - 15 years ago -  was Gleason 3+4, cancer organ confined, with clear margins. You are in a good place. As for 'undetectable', it is a term used, in my view, unscientific without qualification: The value of your PSA depends on the accuracy of the system the laboratory uses to test your blood sample. Ideally you should have a less then (<) sign in front of the number, indicating the accuracy of the result. Even if there were zero PSA in your blood it would not be possibl to measure it that accurately.  My PSA following surgery had been steady at <0.OO3 for many years but then we moved and my local surgery result was 0.06 without the < sign. Every time when anyone has his PSA checked following surgery is a very anxious period. Try and relax; you are in a good position.

Edited by member 04 Dec 2025 at 20:00  | Reason: Not specified

 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.'                    Richard Feynman (1918-1988) Nobel Prize laureate

 

 

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 23:19

Hi mate

I’m 13 months post prostate removal. First bloods were 0.02 it’s now got to 0.07 expected to rise to 0.1 in 3 months. Gleason 4.4 and N1 (cancer found in Lymph node) I was told that in 1 to 3 years it would rise & I’d need further treatment (I’m 54). Seeing oncologist next week for a chat. I expect radio therapy next year some time and some sort of hormone treatment. We’ll see but have every faith we’re in an age where everything is possible and medical  science is moving at an amazing pace. 
What I have taken to heart is to loose weight, get fit and have a great time…if wine cures it I’ll let you know. Stay strong.

 

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 07:56

Nick, peoples post op results are only part of the situation, post op histology of the prostate is also a major consideration. My post op PSA was 0.03 but my histology was poor with positive margins and extra prostatic extension. I was diagnosed almost 12 years ago to the day and still here, it has been a rough journey but we humans are good at adapting. 

The word undetectable Should be replaced with a more appropriate word, many years ago scientists apparently said it was outdated. My own PSA of 0.03 would have been classed as undetectable at many hospitals for a couple of years until it got to this mysterious detectable figure of 0.1.

Don't worry about results it won't change them and the stress won't do you any could.

My consultant told me he had many patients with a stable PSA of 0.1, unfortunately I wasn't one of them but the more sensitive measurement showed me were I was going.

Thanks Chris.

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 15:31
0.06 is not a good result after surgery. Any result with a "less than" is a good result.

Your next PSA is important, don't let it go beyond 3 months.

It's not the end of the world but you will need to be PSA vigilant for a little longer and if it starts going up you will need further treatment at some point. Current protocol is 0.2 for most cases but if high risk (greater than 3+4 or positive margins) then probably no point waiting.

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 15:58

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your words of encouragement it is really most appreciated.

I've just read your full Bio and I'm really sorry to read that you have had such a difficult journey through this disease but incredibly heartened to see the very positive results of your latest PSA. 

I think you're right about results and the use of the misleading word 'undetectable'.  The way I see it now is that I essentially have a PSA of 0.06 and nothing I do at this stage is going to make any difference at all.  What I now have to do is to ignore it, take it easy and wait for 3 months.  I'll then have another PSA test and see where that takes me, hopefully in a positive direction.

All the best.

Nick 

Show Most Thanked Posts
User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 14:06

Nick, mine was <0.06 3 months after surgery. Are you sure that the 'less than' sign has not been omitted? Have you seen the actual lab report yourself? There have been several reported occasions when admin staff miss out the 'less than' sign.

Peter

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 14:15

Hi Peter, 

Thanks for your reply.

I haven't seen the report but have just been told the results during a phone call with my consultant.  I had a super sensitive PSA test yesterday and the consultant told me the result was 0.06, that undectable would have been perfect and that 0.2 would be the level of concern.  So I'm assuming that 0.06 is the actual result.

Thanks

Nick.

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 17:58

Hi again, mate.

As you say, ideally your results would have been undetectable but 0.06 is still low. Have you had your post op histology report yet?

What was your finally cancer staging, was the disease prostate confined. What was your final Gleason score and did you have positive or negative margins?

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 18:40

Hi Adrian,

Good to hear from you again.

I agree 0.06 is nice and low and I am pretty happy about it but am really wondering now what causes it to raise to 0.06 rather than become undetectable.  You're right though, the Histology is very relevant and in my case Gleason was 3+4 and stage T2C both before and after surgery, confined to the prostate and negative margins.  So all pointed to a really good result.

In reality it is a good result, I think that I got my hopes up a bit too much following the very positve post surgery report.  It'll be interesting to see what the next PSA provides in 3 months time - something to look forward to. 😁

Thanks

Nick.

 

 

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 19:58

Hi Wingers

My histology post prostatectomy - 15 years ago -  was Gleason 3+4, cancer organ confined, with clear margins. You are in a good place. As for 'undetectable', it is a term used, in my view, unscientific without qualification: The value of your PSA depends on the accuracy of the system the laboratory uses to test your blood sample. Ideally you should have a less then (<) sign in front of the number, indicating the accuracy of the result. Even if there were zero PSA in your blood it would not be possibl to measure it that accurately.  My PSA following surgery had been steady at <0.OO3 for many years but then we moved and my local surgery result was 0.06 without the < sign. Every time when anyone has his PSA checked following surgery is a very anxious period. Try and relax; you are in a good position.

Edited by member 04 Dec 2025 at 20:00  | Reason: Not specified

 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.'                    Richard Feynman (1918-1988) Nobel Prize laureate

 

 

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 21:31

Originally Posted by: Online Community Member
 As for 'undetectable', it is a term used, in my view, unscientific without qualification: The value of your PSA depends on the accuracy of the system the laboratory uses to test your blood sample. Ideally you should have a less then (<) sign in front of the number, indicating the accuracy of the result.

I'm not quite with you there, Pratap. There is a distinct difference between detectable and undetectable PSA. However the detectable level  can vary between labs. The < in front of a number means that number is the lowest limit detectable by that particular lab. Anything below that number is deemed undetectable, anything above it is detectable. Like you I've had my PSA measured at two different labs. One measures down to 0.02 the other down 0.05. Any PSA below 0.02 in the first would be deemed undetectable and would be recorded <0.02. Any PSA below 0.05 in the second would be deemed undetectable and would be recorded <0.05. So if my PSA was 0.04, it would be 0.04 detectable in the first lab, but undetectable <0.05 undetectable in the second. The less than arrow is therefore quite significant. 

If the lab your GP uses has a lowest limit detectable of 0.06, your PSA should be recorded as < 0.06, if it's still undetectable.

Edited by member 04 Dec 2025 at 21:43  | Reason: Additional text

User
Posted 04 Dec 2025 at 23:19

Hi mate

I’m 13 months post prostate removal. First bloods were 0.02 it’s now got to 0.07 expected to rise to 0.1 in 3 months. Gleason 4.4 and N1 (cancer found in Lymph node) I was told that in 1 to 3 years it would rise & I’d need further treatment (I’m 54). Seeing oncologist next week for a chat. I expect radio therapy next year some time and some sort of hormone treatment. We’ll see but have every faith we’re in an age where everything is possible and medical  science is moving at an amazing pace. 
What I have taken to heart is to loose weight, get fit and have a great time…if wine cures it I’ll let you know. Stay strong.

 

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 07:56

Nick, peoples post op results are only part of the situation, post op histology of the prostate is also a major consideration. My post op PSA was 0.03 but my histology was poor with positive margins and extra prostatic extension. I was diagnosed almost 12 years ago to the day and still here, it has been a rough journey but we humans are good at adapting. 

The word undetectable Should be replaced with a more appropriate word, many years ago scientists apparently said it was outdated. My own PSA of 0.03 would have been classed as undetectable at many hospitals for a couple of years until it got to this mysterious detectable figure of 0.1.

Don't worry about results it won't change them and the stress won't do you any could.

My consultant told me he had many patients with a stable PSA of 0.1, unfortunately I wasn't one of them but the more sensitive measurement showed me were I was going.

Thanks Chris.

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 11:05

Hi Adrian

I agree with you the way in which you have defined - correctly - 'detectable' and 'undetectable' in the context of your explanation, which is the same as what I wrote: '......  it is a term used, in my view, unscientific without qualification.'; I could have put it better. However the way the term 'undetectable' is often used - without explanation or mention of the less than sign (< ) by some consultants and GPs (including mine, who did not even know that there should be the less than (<) sign which, gives an impression to some men that their PSA is zero, creating a false sense of security.  I am a member of a prostate cancer help group where I had to explain to two men that 'undetectable' (their GPs had told them so) does not mean it is zero. Some men - through no fault of their own - don't understand the significance of less than (<) sign or the accuracy of their results in terms of the number of zeros after the decimal point, a reflection of poor maths education in the country. Thank you for your comment, it all helps one hopes, to clarify the confusion.

 'Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that’s not why we do it.'                    Richard Feynman (1918-1988) Nobel Prize laureate

 

 

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 12:36

Hi Pratap,

Thanks for your reply and for detailing your views on the use of the term 'undetectable' - very interesting.  I agree I'm in quite a good place albeit a falling into a slightly grey area at the moment - the next PSAs might start to clarify my position.  My consultant sent me a short note this morning detailing possible explanations for a result of 0.06 rather than undetectable: 

"It suggests persistence of some prostate tissue. This may be benign, which is of no significance and would not require any further tests or treatment—in that case, the PSA will remain below 0.2. Alternatively, it may be malignant, in which case the PSA will rise above 0.2 and would trigger further tests and possible radiotherapy. Thus it is super important to have regular psa tests" 

It seems that we spend a lot of time in limbo with this disease which I guess is something that I need to get used to.

Thanks

Nick.

 

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 15:22

Hi AJW,

Thanks for your reply - it's always good to hear where other people are in their journey. Sorry to hear that you have to go through another round of treatment but as you say science is moving at an incredibly fast pace and treatments are evolving incredibly rapidly!  You're obviously still quite young (I'm 65 in 3 weeks time - doh!) and I'm convinced that a positive attitude such as yours combined with a good fitness level and maintaining a good weight is the way to go!

Personally I'm a great fan of sailing and racing dinghies which is a good reason for me to get back into shape for next season which starts in March.  I'm being slightly hampered by some remaining aches and pains following surgery which is keeping me away form the more strenuous exercises but I'll be doing what I can to get fit again.

Fingers crossed that your scientific study of the effects of wine on this disease prove to be the cure as I'm pretty sure I'll be able to increase my wine intake to the required levels - so keep me updated!

All the best with the next stages of your treatment, keep positive and have a great time.

Nick.

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 15:31
0.06 is not a good result after surgery. Any result with a "less than" is a good result.

Your next PSA is important, don't let it go beyond 3 months.

It's not the end of the world but you will need to be PSA vigilant for a little longer and if it starts going up you will need further treatment at some point. Current protocol is 0.2 for most cases but if high risk (greater than 3+4 or positive margins) then probably no point waiting.

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 15:58

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your words of encouragement it is really most appreciated.

I've just read your full Bio and I'm really sorry to read that you have had such a difficult journey through this disease but incredibly heartened to see the very positive results of your latest PSA. 

I think you're right about results and the use of the misleading word 'undetectable'.  The way I see it now is that I essentially have a PSA of 0.06 and nothing I do at this stage is going to make any difference at all.  What I now have to do is to ignore it, take it easy and wait for 3 months.  I'll then have another PSA test and see where that takes me, hopefully in a positive direction.

All the best.

Nick 

User
Posted 05 Dec 2025 at 16:11

Hi francij1,

Thanks for your note, I agree, the result wasn't ideal but not particularly bad news at this stage, essentially, it is what it is.  The big question in my mind is why wasn't it 'undetectable', and was the cause benign or malignant. As you say the real test will be my next PSA in 3 months time which is a date that I'll certainly be keeping.  

My post op histology was good being 3+4 and negative margins so the initial indications were good so I'm keeping my fingers crossed and ignoring it for the next 3 months.

Thanks

Nick

Edited by member 05 Dec 2025 at 16:11  | Reason: Not specified

 
Forum Jump  
Email this conversation Print this conversation

Join the online community now.

Click through to become a member and gain access to support, information and real time replies.




MenuTop ▲
©2025 Prostate Cancer UK