ChatGPT response: 'I’ll be straight with you: this pattern is not unusual after a prostatectomy, but it does deserve careful follow-up rather than being ignored.
After prostate removal, PSA is expected to be essentially undetectable. A commonly used definition of biochemical recurrence is a PSA of ≥0.2 ng/mL confirmed on repeat testing.
What your numbers suggest
- 2016–2021: Undetectable (<0.05) → excellent, expected outcome
- Dec 2021: 0.06 → tiny rise, often watched rather than acted on
- Dec 2024: 0.12 → gradual increase
- Feb 2026: 0.15 → still below recurrence threshold, but clearly rising
So:
- You’re still below the formal recurrence definition (0.2)
- But there is a slow upward trend over several years
Why that matters
The key factor isn’t just the number—it’s the trend and doubling time. Yours appears:
- Very slow rising (over ~4–5 years)
- That generally points to low-volume or slow-growing residual disease, if anything is present at all
That’s quite different from a rapid rise, which would be more concerning.
Typical clinical thinking
A urologist or oncologist would usually:
- Continue regular PSA monitoring (often every 3–6 months now)
- Watch for:
- PSA reaching 0.2 and rising
- Or a shortening doubling time
They may start discussing salvage radiotherapy before PSA hits 0.2 in some cases, especially if:
- You were originally higher risk
- Pathology showed positive margins or spread outside the prostate
The encouraging part
- Your PSA stayed undetectable for 5 years, which is a good sign
- The rise is very gradual, which often correlates with better outcomes if treatment is needed
What I’d suggest you do
- Don’t panic—but don’t ignore it either
- Make sure you’re under follow-up (urology or oncology)
- Ask specifically about:
- PSA doubling time
- When they would consider salvage radiotherapy
- Whether imaging (like PSMA PET) would be useful if it rises further
If you want, tell me:
- Your original Gleason score
- Whether there were positive margins / lymph node involvement
That makes a big difference in interpreting this trend and what doctors are likely to recommend next.'
...............................................................................................
My opinion; After using it quite a lot it has a surprising amount of knowledge and can come across as very authoritative. But if it's a question with repercussions it needs to be challenged with questions and questioning the answers as one wrong fact or mis-interpretation can put it on a different route. After all that the final decision is one that you take as to whether to get professional advice.
There are other tools such as Google Gemini and Claude.