First detectable uPSA since surgery 14mos ago

Posted by manutebol @manutebol, Feb 1 5:25pm

After a few Labcorp tests of < 0.006 since surgery in Nov 2023, I finally got the dreaded detectable value at my most recent test…. 0.014. While I know you need at least three increasing values at this low level to establish a trend, it is quite unnerving to possibly be facing BCR, even though I figured this day would come eventually.

My plan is to talk to a radiation oncologist when/if I reach 0.05 and start salvage RT at or just before 0.1.

Hoping for this 0.014 just being a blip.

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

@manutebol I'm on a somewhat similar trajectory, but a little further out. The latest was .020, also labcorp uPSA. I have noted that all value have been divisible by .004, but yours is not so maybe that is just coincidence. If that is the case though, >.006 would correspond to either .004 or .000, so the undetectability is likely a function of the effective testing range, not the actual value. So if it's less than .008 it doesn't get reported.
My urologist said he would recommend next treatment at .1, like you are suggesting. After the last uPSA, he declared me "stable." (Tonight we were joking that this is the first time anyone has ever declared me stable, which in itself should raise suspicions ;-).
When values were rising, we tested more frequently--every 3 months, but now that I have been declared "stable," it's back to every 6 months. I too had positive margin in one area, so I'm expecting it to start climbing sooner or later. Assuming it advances exponentially, 0.1 is really not that far away from .020. We'll see what comes next.

REPLY
@spino

@manutebol I'm on a somewhat similar trajectory, but a little further out. The latest was .020, also labcorp uPSA. I have noted that all value have been divisible by .004, but yours is not so maybe that is just coincidence. If that is the case though, >.006 would correspond to either .004 or .000, so the undetectability is likely a function of the effective testing range, not the actual value. So if it's less than .008 it doesn't get reported.
My urologist said he would recommend next treatment at .1, like you are suggesting. After the last uPSA, he declared me "stable." (Tonight we were joking that this is the first time anyone has ever declared me stable, which in itself should raise suspicions ;-).
When values were rising, we tested more frequently--every 3 months, but now that I have been declared "stable," it's back to every 6 months. I too had positive margin in one area, so I'm expecting it to start climbing sooner or later. Assuming it advances exponentially, 0.1 is really not that far away from .020. We'll see what comes next.

Jump to this post

Thanks for the note. I have seen a couple folks on the Labcorp say they had a 0.007 or 0.009, so I’m not sure on your theory. If you do keep getting numbers divisible by 4 indefinitely, head to the roulette table and take your shot. Should be easy money.

I meet with my surgeon later this morning for my standard annual visit, so we shall see what he says.

REPLY

And…as expected, I got the “get another PSA test in four months” from my doc visit this morning.

Back in the eternal waiting mode, as we all are with this disease.

REPLY
@manutebol

And…as expected, I got the “get another PSA test in four months” from my doc visit this morning.

Back in the eternal waiting mode, as we all are with this disease.

Jump to this post

He did stealthily switch me to the Quest test with the < 0.02 threshold.

REPLY
@spino

@manutebol I'm on a somewhat similar trajectory, but a little further out. The latest was .020, also labcorp uPSA. I have noted that all value have been divisible by .004, but yours is not so maybe that is just coincidence. If that is the case though, >.006 would correspond to either .004 or .000, so the undetectability is likely a function of the effective testing range, not the actual value. So if it's less than .008 it doesn't get reported.
My urologist said he would recommend next treatment at .1, like you are suggesting. After the last uPSA, he declared me "stable." (Tonight we were joking that this is the first time anyone has ever declared me stable, which in itself should raise suspicions ;-).
When values were rising, we tested more frequently--every 3 months, but now that I have been declared "stable," it's back to every 6 months. I too had positive margin in one area, so I'm expecting it to start climbing sooner or later. Assuming it advances exponentially, 0.1 is really not that far away from .020. We'll see what comes next.

Jump to this post

Just for informational purposes, I use LabCorp uPSA and have for some time.
Since stabalizing after salvage radiation my level has been reported as < 0.006 which makes me think that must be the threshold for that lab.

REPLY
@manutebol

He did stealthily switch me to the Quest test with the < 0.02 threshold.

Jump to this post

I would want to know the reason why. Tests are not strictly comparable so I would at the very least simply say I'd like to continue to use the labcorp uPSA unless there is a reason to change long term. Eh? I also go to the same facility every time. There was at least one time where the test was wrongly specified (not uPSA) and I had to ask that it be changed.

REPLY
@spino

I would want to know the reason why. Tests are not strictly comparable so I would at the very least simply say I'd like to continue to use the labcorp uPSA unless there is a reason to change long term. Eh? I also go to the same facility every time. There was at least one time where the test was wrongly specified (not uPSA) and I had to ask that it be changed.

Jump to this post

He did it because he knew Quest was a higher threshold at < 0.02 than LabCorp’s < 0.006. So he thinks it’ll reduce my worry about it.

REPLY
Please sign in or register to post a reply.