← Return to Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy

Discussion

Biochemical Recurrence After Prostatectomy

Prostate Cancer | Last Active: Oct 30 4:20pm | Replies (17)
Comment receiving replies
@kujhawk1978

No need to apologize...when I was diagnosed in January 2014 I didn't even know what a prostate was, it's function...

BCR is biological chemical recurrence...for those who have had surgery one criteria is after PSA has been undetectable , < .1 with a standard PSA test, you have consecutive readings of .2 or higher typically spaced 90 days apart.

For those who chose radiation the criteria is different, it is a reading based on the nadir .

There is a not well agreed upon definition when using an ultra sensitive PSA test.

Also, understand that BCR may not be the only piece of clinical data you want in making a treatment decision, imaging is an important piece of that clinical data.

Kevin

Jump to this post

Replies to "No need to apologize...when I was diagnosed in January 2014 I didn't even know what a..."
spino | @spino | Nov 29, 2023

I'll just add to Kevin's explanation that "biochemical recurrence" is by definition PSA related. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is the biochemical marker that is being referred to. BCR emerged as a thing because it is observable much sooner than death by prostate cancer, etc., so it is frequently used as a proxy (replacement measure) for cure or not cure to evaluate success or failure of treatments in the research.
Historically (and I think presently) removal of the prostate is the most common first step in treatment when prostate cancer is identified as a problem requiring intervention. This results in PSA going near or close to 0. (Before ultrasensitive PSA tests emerged, under 0.1 was "undetectable." BCR means that the cancer has reemerged, since the prostate itself is no longer there to generate PSA.
Now that ultrasensitive PSA tests are available, exactly what reading (lower than 0.2 and more precise) should be considered BCR varies in the research, but two readings of 0.2 would still be a top boundary--specific to people without a prostate.

VIEW AND REPLY