2 good 2 be true?

Hi from Toronto - I've posted a few times about my husband who had PCa
at 41 with a gleason 8 and psa of 13. After a prostatectomy and
radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from .11, .22, .44 and
then .88. Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05, the
lowest ever number post-surgery. He is not on any type of hormone
therapy. He had his radiation in 2002. Is it possible that he has
only now reached his nadir, or is this just a fluke? He is ready to
break out the champagne, but I think he should have another test in a
month or two to make sure that this isn't an abberation. Any opinions?

<khildebrandt@casselsbrock.com> wrote in message
news:1181136799.767158.320270@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi from Toronto - I've posted a few times about my husband who had PCa
> at 41 with a gleason 8 and psa of 13. After a prostatectomy and
> radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from .11, .22, .44 and
> then .88. Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05, the
> lowest ever number post-surgery. He is not on any type of hormone
> therapy. He had his radiation in 2002. Is it possible that he has
> only now reached his nadir, or is this just a fluke? He is ready to
> break out the champagne, but I think he should have another test in a
> month or two to make sure that this isn't an abberation. Any opinions?

I remember you, Karen.

Keep the cork in the bubbly. I hate to be the bearer of tentative news, but
I have heard of no reason for doubling PSA to suddenly drop like a rock
without treatment. More likely scenarios are as follows:

1. A miracle occurred. I believe in God and therefore that
possibility. I cannot imagine any one of us with a better right for a
miracle. 41-year-olds should not be attacked by this bastard!

2. Your lab screwed up the test.

3. Your lab accidentally switched samples.

4. You (or they) have misplaced the decimal. His 0.44 was, as I
recall, in February. If his 0.88 was in March, then by April it could have
been 1.76, by May 3.52, and by now, ... well... I hate to ask, but is it
possible his PSA was 5.00 and not 0.05?

5. He is taking Sal Palmetto which artificially reduces PSA (but not
PCa) and/or some other 'natural' substance that emulates hormone treatment.

I believe, with his 8 Gleason, #4 is probably the answer; but I pray it is
#1.


SRK




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

I'd get another test sooner rather than later. Best ask your
oncologist/urologist what he/she thinks.

Like Steve K, I am hoping this is a miracle, but fearing this is a
foul-up by the lab.

--
Peter Headland

On Jun 6, 9:33 am, khildebra...@casselsbrock.com wrote:
> Hi from Toronto - I've posted a few times about my husband who had PCa
> at 41 with a gleason 8 and psa of 13. After a prostatectomy and
> radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from .11, .22, .44 and
> then .88. Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05, the
> lowest ever number post-surgery. He is not on any type of hormone
> therapy. He had his radiation in 2002. Is it possible that he has
> only now reached his nadir, or is this just a fluke? He is ready to
> break out the champagne, but I think he should have another test in a
> month or two to make sure that this isn't an abberation. Any opinions?


1. Are you sure? Do you have a copy of the lab report
or was it communicated orally. If the latter, get the report.

2. Were all tests at the same lab using the same assay?
The Hybritech/BCI assay results in a reproducible 23%
higher reading than Bayer, Centaur, DPC or other assays
so simply switching from a Hybritech assay to one of the
others could result in a 23% drop without any underlying
change.

3. PSA can be affected by many factors other than cancer.
In the paragraph entitled Factors Affecting PSA at this link:

http://palpable-prostate.blogspot.co...n-part_14.html

check whether any of the decreasing factors apply now
and did not apply previously or whether any of the increasing
factors applied previously but not now.

4. Get retested in case they made a mistake.

5. Get an opinion from a urologist.

---
The Palpable Prostate
http://palpable-prostate.blogspot.com

Karen wrote:
> radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from
> .11,
> .22,
> .44 and then
> .88.
> Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05,
> Any opinions?

I can't believe his PSA ___exactly___ doubled between tests.
If the results were something like .11, .19, .40, etc. I'd be more
believing, but the numbers you wrote sure makes it look that a lab screwed
up somewhere.

On Jun 6, 8:32 pm, "california_chief"
<Fire_Chief@Jamacha_Junction_FD.ca.us> wrote:
> Karen wrote:
> > radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from
> > .11,
> > .22,
> > .44 and then
> > .88.
> > Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05,
> > Any opinions?
>
> I can't believe his PSA ___exactly___ doubled between tests.
> If the results were something like .11, .19, .40, etc. I'd be more
> believing, but the numbers you wrote sure makes it look that a lab screwed
> up somewhere.

Thanks for all your comments - sounds like a re-test is definitely in
order. I thought there may have been an error too, but I didn't want
to burst my husband's bubble or sound negative...

On Jun 6, 9:33 am, khildebra...@casselsbrock.com wrote:
> Hi from Toronto - I've posted a few times about my husband who had PCa
> at 41 with a gleason 8 and psa of 13. After a prostatectomy and
> radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from .11, .22, .44 and
> then .88. Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05, the
> lowest ever number post-surgery. He is not on any type of hormone
> therapy. He had his radiation in 2002. Is it possible that he has
> only now reached his nadir, or is this just a fluke? He is ready to
> break out the champagne, but I think he should have another test in a
> month or two to make sure that this isn't an abberation. Any opinions?

Hopefully he is lucky and the radiation did have an effect - there are
cases where the radiation effect takes as long as 5 years to fully do
it's work. An early retest is in order.
Lud in Ottawa

"california_chief" <Fire_Chief@Jamacha_Junction_FD.ca.us> wrote in message
news:q1M9i.14004$6z4.942@newsfe19.lga...
> Karen wrote:
>> radiation his psa has been steadily rising, from
>> .11,
>> .22,
>> .44 and then
>> .88.
>> Three months after the .88 he now has a psa of .05,
>> Any opinions?
>
> I can't believe his PSA ___exactly___ doubled between tests.
> If the results were something like .11, .19, .40, etc.

I checked back, and I think it was actually; 0.18, 0.20, 0.44, 0.88

But, those last two were in February and March 2007 which is what concerns
me.





--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

<khildebrandt@casselsbrock.com> wrote in message
news:1181220268.643521.303240@p77g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...


> Thanks for all your comments - sounds like a re-test is definitely in
> order. I thought there may have been an error too, but I didn't want
> to burst my husband's bubble or sound negative...
>

Believe me, Karen. He would much rather his bubble was burst now rather
than a 10.00 in three months.


--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04, <0.05
Non Illegitimi Carborundum