← Return to Biopsy Decision

Discussion
broderbund1 avatar

Biopsy Decision

Prostate Cancer | Last Active: 9 hours ago | Replies (22)

Comment receiving replies
Profile picture for jc76 @jc76

@handera
I am had PC. I had a normal PSA of 3.75 when I was diagnosed. My Mayo PCP did not like the continued rise of my PSA over last couple of years and referred me to urologist. That began my journey to diagnosis and treatment for PC.

A normal PSA does not mean a person has PC. Nor does a high PSA mean you have. PSA rising over time is a concern that should be checked and not (which you can see in my case) base in solely on what your PSA number is.

I am posting this not necessarily a reaction to your post but the posts of others and wanted to show PSA is something you use as a warning not a diagnosis of whether you will have PC or not have it.

Jump to this post


Replies to "@handera I am had PC. I had a normal PSA of 3.75 when I was diagnosed...."

@jc76 To quote my doctor: "I've had guys with a very low PSA and serious cancer and I've had guys with a very high PSA and no cancer at all. Both are rare, but they do happen".

This is why we have our current model of multiple tests until everyone has enough information to make an educated and informed decision.

@jc76

Agreed!

A single PSA test result is only one (a poor one at that) of the many biomarkers to consider when trying to determine what to do next.

Staying with PSA testing, your PSA doubling time, PSA velocity and PSA density are more important than any individual PSA test result, to help determine the probability of a man having clinically significant prostate cancer.

Besides mpMRI, many new tests, such as the MyProstateScore 2.0, IsoPSA, SelectMDx, Prostate Screening EpiSwitch, ExoDx (EPI), Prostate Health Index, and the PCA3 tests (I’m sure I’ve missed some) have significant advantages over PSA in predicting clinically significant PCa.

IMO the current problem is that there are so many possible PSA test improvement alternatives, that no particular one is being universally adopted by the medical urological community….in fact some urologists don’t bother with any of the improved tests.

That’s why one must do their own research and REQUEST a particular PSA alternative test, if that’s what you want.

I know PSA is great to look for biochemical recurrence after treatment; but it’s horribly inaccurate as a predictor of PCa for screening purposes.