Rising PSA at 5 months post-RALP
Hello,
With all the fantastic expertise and valuable experiences from the members of this forum, which have provided great help for me in this rugged journey during the past months, I am hoping to receive some feedback regarding my current situation. At 5 months post-RALP, my PSA is at 0.19, practically at the 0.20 cutoff to be considered biochemical recurrence.
At this time, the Oncologist has indicated that we wait another 3 weeks to have another PSA test, and then another PSA test 2 weeks after that, with the intention of confirming an upward trend or a possible stabilization of the value in that range. He has also indicated that I get a PSMA PET/CT at this time, to rule out any signs of possible spread to other areas. He would like to have these test results before we can confirm that SRT is required, which he has pointed as the most likely path for me, along with ADT.
For reference, below is a summary of my clinical profile.
*** My concerns are:
- With a PSA of 0.19, if we wait another 5 weeks for the tests are we risking a further quick rise in PSA that could put me at a less favorable situation to begin SRT/ADT? Should the treatment not be started right away, as I am now within the optimal early salvage window?
- Would ADT really be required? My understanding is that my factors in favor of considering adding ADT are: Gleason 4+3, Positive margin (3 mm, pattern 4), PSA post-RALP: 0.02 → 0.18 → 0.19 (early recurrence) // However, factors against considering the need to add ADT: pT2 (organ-confined), PSA ~0.19, pN0 (nodes negative at surgery), Low tumor volume (~5%).
Would the improvement in cure probability that ADT would add for me be worth the negative side effects?
- Is a PSMA PET/CT scan really required, given that all my image and pathology reports have shown no signs of extracapsular extension? Also, with a PSA of 0.19, will the CT scan show anything (microscopic / below detection)?
Thank you in advance for reviewing my case and concerns, and for providing any possible comments or suggestions.
//// Clinical Profile ////
**Age:** 56 years
**Diagnosis:** Acinar adenocarcinoma of the prostate
---
## **PSA Evolution**
* Aug 2019: 0.599
* Sep 2021: 0.732
* Jan 2023: 0.98
* May 2024: 2.53
* Jun 2025: 3.90
---
## **MRI (July 2025)**
* Single lesion, PI-RADS 4
* Location: left peripheral zone (posterolateral, lower third)
* Size: 8 mm
---
## **Prostate Biopsy (August 2025)**
* 5 out of 15 cores positive
* 2 cores: Gleason 6 (3+3) → low volume
* 2 cores: Gleason 7 (3+4) → significant volume (up to 61%)
* 1 core: Gleason 8 (4+4) → present (transitional zone)
---
## **PSMA PET/CT (September 2025)**
* Focal uptake in prostate (left peripheral zone)
* **miTNM:** T2u N0 M0
**No evidence of:
* Extracapsular extension
* Nodal involvement
* Distant metastases
---
## **Robotic Radical Prostatectomy (November 2025)**
# **Final Pathology**
* **Type: Acinar adenocarcinoma
* **Gleason score: 4+3=7 (Grade Group 3)
* **Pattern 4 predominance in tumor: 90%
**Tumor characteristics:**
* Prostate involvement: 5%
* Multifocal
* No extracapsular extension (pT2)
* Seminal vesicles: negative
* Lymph nodes: 0/1 negative (pN0)
* Perineural invasion: present
* No lymphovascular invasion
**Key finding:**
* **Positive surgical margin**
* Location: left posterior apex
* Length: 3 mm
* Gleason pattern 4 at margin
---
## **Postoperative PSA**
* Dec 2025 (5 weeks): 0.02
* Mar 2026 (4 months): 0.18
* Apr 2026 (4.5 months): 0.19
---
## **Overall Risk Assessment (Post-Prostatectomy)**
### **Adverse Factors**
* Positive surgical margin (pattern 4)
* Gleason 4+3 (high proportion of pattern 4)
* Early PSA rise (< 6 months)
### **Favorable Factors**
* pT2 (no extracapsular extension)
* pN0
* Negative PSMA PET
* Low tumor volume (5%)
Interested in more discussions like this? Go to the Prostate Cancer Support Group.
Connect

Hi, The PET scan is much more sensitive than the MRI in picking up small micro metastatic locations. I would think the PET scan is definitely needed and if they find cancer they can zap it with radiation. ADT is usually given before radiation to weaken the cancer so the radiation does a better job. There are some newer ADT drugs out like Orgovxy that come in pill form and have less side effects like the older Lupron. You might also take a few rounds of ADT after radiation to further eradicate the cancer.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 ReactionHi. I had prostatectomy last August
I was at .17. I am a Gleason 7 4+3 with some snappy add ones such as cribiform, idc and capsular extension. Just made it into rochester yesterday for Mayo appts early next week. They have me scheduled for psma, PSA blood test and a meeting with radiology the next day. I will let you know what they say. I want them to go aggressive so my approach on adt will be a little different. Dave
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
3 Reactions@clevelandguy
Thank you for your response. I am getting the sense that getting the PET scan will be the safest option.
@dhasper
Thank you for your reply. It seems like we are in a similar situation. I will greatly appreciate it if you can let me know what results from your consultation appointment next week. All my Best to you.
@clevelandguy
Actually, the PSMA PET scan has a hard time seeing metastasis that are smaller than 2 1/2 mm. Micro metastasis are a problem for sure.
I was at the UCSF conference today and asked them about it and they said yes 2 mm is hard and even bigger can be hard depending on the case. The radiation oncologist gave a few different presentations and showed a number of slides with people that had metastasis that couldn’t really be noticed without the PET scan.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 Reactions@jeffmarc
From what I have read and others have stated the PMSA PET scan is better that an MRI at picking up micro metastatic cancer. A lot of times the PSA will rise before the PET scan can see it.
@clevelandguy
Micro metastasis are smaller than 2 mm So neither scan is gonna find them.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 ReactionWell we are both welcome to our own opinions based on our past knowledge.
@clevelandguy It’s been reported that different tracers bear out better results - even some of the older ones.
I think Gallium is standard now?
Perhaps your RO can brainstorm this with you. Best,
Phil
@heavyphil
Yes best to check with your Oncologist to get the best tracers to help find cancer on the scan.