UKC

Anyone been tested for PSA levels? Had a blood test last week which showed a level of 4.2 which, apparently for somebody of 69, is pretty insignificant.

Doc seemed to say that PSA levels can fluctuate according to a range of factors. Anyone got any first hand info please?

In reply to mypyrex:

Don't take this the wrong way but a) sounds like good news and b) your doc' will have plenty of first hand info.

jk

In reply to mypyrex:

Yep, part of the standard over 40 test for those that don't see th doctor often.

In reply to jkarran:

>your doc' will have plenty of first hand info.

No doubt!

In reply to mypyrex:

All part of the digital revolution!
jk

In reply to mypyrex:

Had mine 3 years ago, must have been OK but don't know the numbers. Thanks for reminding me I should go again - I presume a 3 year gap is time for another (over 60).

In reply to mypyrex:

Mine is in double figures but biopsies and mri have seemingly not revealed anything dodgy. Lots of false positives etc. Lots or caution needs to be exercised with the nterprétation or thé basic figure.

In reply to Orgsm:


Is it? I thought Nhs advice is that psa treating should only be used when considered necessary as it is not the most reliable test in the world. I only know about psa from an academic perspective but 4.2 doesn't sound alarming and is less than the normal value for a 70 year old which would be 5.

In reply to Monk:

WTF is a PSA level? Do I need one? Should I worry?

REW (61)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Prostate Specific Antigen. Had mine checked as a result of noticing a weak stream and a bit of nocturia. Funnily enough, since having it checked I could pee for England!

In reply to mypyrex:

I believe the first test doesn't mean much by itself. It is the INCREASE in level of PSA over time which may indicate a possibility of prostatic cancer. The initial level is generally more important as a base line and thus it is good that you now have a figure for this.
I think actually feeling the prostate via the anus is a better initial test. Even then many, if not most, older men have a slightly swollen prostate and if the surface feels smooth rather than rough then cancer is very unlikely. Obviously your GP can both provide an examination and further information.

In reply to mypyrex:

What do you want to know? As you say 4.2 is low for a 69 year old.

PSA tests are not conclusive, only indicative. The only way of getting a much better idea of the cause is to have a biopsy.

As you say there can be many factors affecting PSA levels.

You've obviously discussed this with your GP? If you are not happy have you been offered a referral to a consultant urologist?

Everyone is different and one person's experience, including mine, is not necessarily relevant to you.

My PSA was 8 when I was first diagnosed with prostate cancer aged 67. I had a biopsy under a local which revealed a very small tumour in the prostate. I then had what was known as watchful waiting for another 2 years with PSA tests every 6 months during which time the PSA slowly rose to 11. I then had another biopsy (under a general anesthetic) which took many more samples - this showed that although still small and still contained within the prostate gland the tumour had nearly doubled in size.

I was then faced with some stark choices

1 Do nothing, l because it appeared to be a slow growing tumour and at my age, by then 69, the chances of my leading a normal life and dying from something else were fairly high. But if I did nothing and the cancer spread beyond the prostate I would be storing up problems for my older life, including a receding chance of surgery or radiation treatment being successful, and an increasing risk of dying from the cancer.

2 Have radiation treatment. This would mean a long period of regular visits to a specialist hospital about 2 hours drive away with the probability that I would have to get someone to drive me. Also if the treatment failed I would not then be able to fall back on surgery as a second defence.

3 Brachiotherapy - the injection of concentrated radio active seeds into the prostate gland. Bladder tests revealed that I wasn't a suitable candidate for that.

4 A radical prostatectomy by keyhole surgery. The advantage of this was that if it failed to stop the cancer I could still fall back on radiotherapy as a second line of defence.

Both radiotherapy and surgery carry a comparatively high risk of unpleasant, although as it turned out in my case, fairly short lived side effects - impotence and incontinence.

I opted for 4 and now two and a half years on, aged 71 I am very fit, and so far my regular follow up tests have all shown a PSA level of 0.02.

It took about 3 months to recover from the operation before I could start climbing and mountain walking again, and about a year to be fully free from the unpleasant side affects.

I have no regrets, and urge you and anyone else who is worried about prostate cancer to get a referral to a urologist ASAP.

I hope this helps?

In reply to Trangia:

Thanks for that. Haven't yet had and actual examination(you know the one!) I'm seeing the GP on Friday when I presume that will be a possibility.

I thought I saw somewhere that I raised PSA level can be induced by intercourse within the preceding 48 hours.

It is early days and I realise it could be something or nothing.

In reply to mypyrex:




I believe it can. I also suggest that you don't ride a bike to your appointment!


Good luck!

In reply to Trangia:

Don't ask
Thanks

In reply to jkarran:


Doc's middle finger info probably more useful...

In reply to Trangia:


My father-in-law had this, as he didn't like the idea of surgery and I think his consultant rather pushed it - vague idea he had something to do with the development of it.

Having seen what he's been through as a result of the side effects, I wouldn't recommend it.

In reply to LastBoyScout:

My consultant wasn't keen on it as an option even before it was found that my bladder wasn't suitable for it. It's just that to a layman it seemed to be a softer option than surgery.

In your FIL's case obviously not.

Having had it and having spoken to other men who have been through various alternatives, it does seem that although drastic, surgery is the best option long term.

In reply to oldie:

Yes its the rise in PSA over time that indicates a problem. A single PSA test is merely a baseline unless its extremely high..
Many older men have benign prostatic hypertrophy, which is basically an enlarged prostate that will reduce flow and cause frequency. However it is benign.

If the PSA level at a given is at a particular level due to some influencing factor (as I said earlier, I'm given to understand that ejaculation within 48 hours is such a factor) I wonder if there is any significance in that?
Just wondering.

In reply to Monk:


Clearly that hasn't filtered to my GP then. As when I went in for my check that was one of the tests they recommended. I guess when you go to your GP on average about once every 10 years, then it makes sense.

In reply to mypyrex:

You can't beat a finger up the bum, fortunately my last test was done by a very beautiful female doctor, the nearest thing I have had to penetrative sex in years.

In reply to Al Evans:

LoL

In reply to oldie:


In my forties, I went to see my GP about getting a baseline PSA , my father having had an aggressive form of the cancer relatively young. The GP suggested that there was no genetic factor she knew of to the condition and emphasised the unnecessary treatment that could stem from a false'positive'. I sensed she didn't want to do it so I left the matter for a further decade before booking a PSA test myself with the practice nurse, last month.

Summoned by letter to see my GP, I was asked rather curtly why I had had the test. I explained that there was a known increased risk to me, given my father's history, and as I was now in my mid fifties It was about time for a baseline. " Your reading is 4.3 which is a bit high for your age, but don't worry, I've seen people with PSA readings in the hundreds." I asked about a DRE ( digital rectal examination)- "well, to be frank, I dont think that I would be able to tell much more from that". So I asked if there was anyone else in the practice who would be prepared to perform the examination: "Erm, ....you could try 'X', he'll probably do it, he's a bit 'old school'.." I offered that perhaps the practice had some training needs and pushed for a referral to a Urologist.
I 've been seen promptly by the urology dept, and the ball is rolling, so to speak.
Probably, if I hadn't been reminded of the issue by the sighting of Prostate Cancer UK's 'Man Van', I might have left it a few more years......


From my experience above, I wouldn't rely on your GP for screening - you may have to push for a test.