1. < Prostate Cancer
Profile picture for mikeg73

Last PSA Number Before Cancer Diagnosis?

Posted by mikeg73 @mikeg73, Aug 23 10:27am

Would anyone mind sharing their last PSA number before they were diagnosed with prostate cancer?

It seems like PSA of 4.0 is the typical point where many are referred to Urologist. I'm wondering are most people getting diagnosed within the 4 - 10 PSA range.

Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.

Profile picture for cole5055
cole5055 | @cole5055 | Aug 27 6:13pm

5.1 on my annual health check two years ago, now Aug - 27 - 2025 - 15.5 and climbing Air Force Veteran, Biopsy 14 cores negative. They now want to do a saturation Biopsy 94 cores! I said heck there will be nothing left of my prostrate!

REPLY
2 replies
Profile picture for jeff Marchi
jeff Marchi | @jeffmarc | Aug 27 7:14pm
In reply to @cole5055 "5.1 on my annual health check two years ago, now Aug - 27 - 2025 -..." + (show)
Profile picture for cole5055 @cole5055

5.1 on my annual health check two years ago, now Aug - 27 - 2025 - 15.5 and climbing Air Force Veteran, Biopsy 14 cores negative. They now want to do a saturation Biopsy 94 cores! I said heck there will be nothing left of my prostrate!

Jump to this post

This really is outside the norms by a huge amount. I’ve never heard of anybody getting more than about 20 cores. Can they do an MRI to see if there’s something in a specific spot so they can biopsy that area? 94 course is just absurd, Are they just too cheap to do the MRI?

Your PSA has climbed a lot, Have you ever been diagnosed with a large prostate or with BPH? Both of those things can cause the PSA to rise to the levels you’re saying. I know people that have had a prostate over 100 cc and after antibiotics their prostate shrank and their PSA went down, Just one to eliminate that possibility.

Since you are a veteran, there is a place you can go to get some help. Ancan.Org Holds a veteran meeting twice a month for cancer patients. Go to that website and sign up and attend one of those meetings. Captain Jim can help you get better treatment from the VA or through outside doctors.

REPLY
1 reply
Profile picture for cole5055
cole5055 | @cole5055 | Aug 28 9:48am
In reply to @jeffmarc "This really is outside the norms by a huge amount. I’ve never heard of anybody getting..." + (show)
Profile picture for jeff Marchi @jeffmarc

This really is outside the norms by a huge amount. I’ve never heard of anybody getting more than about 20 cores. Can they do an MRI to see if there’s something in a specific spot so they can biopsy that area? 94 course is just absurd, Are they just too cheap to do the MRI?

Your PSA has climbed a lot, Have you ever been diagnosed with a large prostate or with BPH? Both of those things can cause the PSA to rise to the levels you’re saying. I know people that have had a prostate over 100 cc and after antibiotics their prostate shrank and their PSA went down, Just one to eliminate that possibility.

Since you are a veteran, there is a place you can go to get some help. Ancan.Org Holds a veteran meeting twice a month for cancer patients. Go to that website and sign up and attend one of those meetings. Captain Jim can help you get better treatment from the VA or through outside doctors.

Jump to this post

Thanks Jeff,

Yes, 94 cores seems 🙏”way excessive” I called the Doctor the correct number he said is 24, but that still seems excessive to me. ( especially after 14 cores all negative ) And yes, I have had a prostrate specific MRI with contrast & a PMSA-PET CT scan both showed something, but was inconclusive? My Doctor says let’s just remove your prostrate and be done! I said Absolutely not……. There are a lot of options before I would even consider this…… I also asked him what if the 24 core biopsy comes back negative. He said we will continue biopsies until we find something! My PSA jumped significantly after the first Biopsy I think it was the trauma of being stabbed 14 times…….. Thank you for your suggestions the VA has been EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO WORK WITH …… took two years just to get an appointment to see a Doctor! Yes, Doc says I have mild to moderate BPH could also be causing the elevated PSA……

Most Respectfully
Ray 20yr Air Force Veteran Desert Storm 🇺🇸

REPLY
1 reply
Profile picture for rlpostrp
rlpostrp | @rlpostrp | Aug 28 10:46am

I was 6.1 ng/ml pre-biopsy. My first PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"), but I have several worrisome pathological features that make me a pT3b, and makes me wonder why we are waiting three more months for the next PSA, instead of starting radiation that my urologist mentioned we will "need to talk about."
It is utterly amazing that with a "normal" 2 ng/ml PSA (normal reference range is 0 - 4 ng/ml) that you actually had a Gleason 3+4=7 tumor occupying 20% of the prostate. "HOW" does an MRI miss a tumor occupying 20% of your prostate? Poor radiologist review of your MRI. You were wise to raise that "B.S." flag

REPLY
2 replies
Profile picture for AkTbear
AkTbear | @aktbear | Aug 28 10:46am
In reply to @jc76 "@mikeg73 For several years my PSA was normal but climbing. My PCP did not like that..." + (show)
Profile picture for jc76 @jc76

@mikeg73
For several years my PSA was normal but climbing. My PCP did not like that and started doing PSA every 3 months. When it kept climbing (although not highly) he referred me to a urologist. My PSA at that time was 3.75.

The urogolist did a DME (detailed medical exam) and a DRE and found normal prostate. Ordered a MRI with contrast and came back with suspicisous areas. The urologist told me 70% chance those suspicious areas were cancer. He ordered biopsies with MRI/Fusion. Results were 3+4=7 and 4+3=7 risk level intermediate. Decipher test done came back low risk not intermediate. PSMA negative, bone scan negative.

I can go on further with my journey and what I decided but my post here is please base what you do on your own life, symptoms, and mental outlook. I have posted my experience with PSA numbers to say do not look at the PSA number alone on whether you should explore further testing. The key is a rising PSA number over and over each time done should be a red light to something wrong need to find out what it is.

My urologist and R/Os said they have caught my prostate cancer very early and my prognosis was excellent for successful treatment.

Where am I today? 2.5 years after my Proton Radiation treatments my PSA is .10 form my highest of 3.75
I do have minor issues with urination leakage when I really need to go. I am on Cilias to help calm down prostate, bladder, and was told even the tissue inside my penis.

Each person on MCC has their own experience. You need to address yours as yours. None of us know your medical and mental history so what may be best for you was not what was best for us and vice versa. I do hope you see from my post that doing something at a specific number is not what I did and caught my cancer early.

Jump to this post

Exactly! Start a PSA history now. Mine, over 8 years climbed from .8 to 2.3. Wasn't till I had a Colonoscopy Oct '24 that the Dr. bumped the Prostate and felt a nodule. That led to the Urologist and Biopsy. 2 out of 12 needles 3+3, 4+3. Next stop Mayo Rochester in Oct for Tulsa Pro/Cryo

REPLY
Profile picture for jeff Marchi
jeff Marchi | @jeffmarc | Aug 28 10:54am
In reply to @rlpostrp "I was 6.1 ng/ml pre-biopsy. My first PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"),..." + (show)
Profile picture for rlpostrp @rlpostrp

I was 6.1 ng/ml pre-biopsy. My first PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"), but I have several worrisome pathological features that make me a pT3b, and makes me wonder why we are waiting three more months for the next PSA, instead of starting radiation that my urologist mentioned we will "need to talk about."
It is utterly amazing that with a "normal" 2 ng/ml PSA (normal reference range is 0 - 4 ng/ml) that you actually had a Gleason 3+4=7 tumor occupying 20% of the prostate. "HOW" does an MRI miss a tumor occupying 20% of your prostate? Poor radiologist review of your MRI. You were wise to raise that "B.S." flag

Jump to this post

Did you mistype this? “PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"),”

You are saying it was greater than .1 Did you actually mean it was less than .1? < .1

Could be just a matter of the arrow pointing the wrong way, but if it was pointing to greater than, then it’s not zero and is something you need to monitor closely In future tests.

REPLY
Profile picture for rlpostrp
rlpostrp | @rlpostrp | Aug 28 2:23pm

“Whoops”…good catch JeffMarc. Yes…Sorry guys. I should have written < 0.1 ng/ml (“less than 0.1 ng/ml). I errantly wrote >0.1 ng/ml in my previous post.

REPLY
Profile picture for koji480
koji480 | @koji480 | Aug 28 5:20pm
In reply to @kjacko "7.7" + (show)
Profile picture for kjacko @kjacko

7.7

Jump to this post

56 at time of DX in August of 2019.

REPLY
Profile picture for beachflyer
beachflyer | @beachflyer | Aug 29 12:33am
In reply to @rlpostrp "I was 6.1 ng/ml pre-biopsy. My first PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"),..." + (show)
Profile picture for rlpostrp @rlpostrp

I was 6.1 ng/ml pre-biopsy. My first PSA 3-months post-op was the desired >0.1 ng/ml ("zero"), but I have several worrisome pathological features that make me a pT3b, and makes me wonder why we are waiting three more months for the next PSA, instead of starting radiation that my urologist mentioned we will "need to talk about."
It is utterly amazing that with a "normal" 2 ng/ml PSA (normal reference range is 0 - 4 ng/ml) that you actually had a Gleason 3+4=7 tumor occupying 20% of the prostate. "HOW" does an MRI miss a tumor occupying 20% of your prostate? Poor radiologist review of your MRI. You were wise to raise that "B.S." flag

Jump to this post

Hello Rlostrp,

I asked my surgeon Dr Ahlering at UCI Medical Center that very question. He said that approximately 8 to 10% of men get MRI invisible PC due to the unusual cellular pattern in their PC. He said it typically goes undetected until it is advanced. Interestingly, the literature states that MRI negative (invisible) PC is typically low grade usually not more than Gleason 6 so not seeing it can be a good thing…except for the 8 to 10% of us!

REPLY
View MoreView Less
Please sign in or register to post a reply.