a lurker
|
From: Steve Kramer on 25 Jul 2008 17:02 "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit(a)noway.nohow> wrote in message news:50rik.3677$KZ.3591(a)newsfe03.iad... > Steve Kramer wrote: >> So now it's back down to 0.020. >> >> Lends credance to the theory that no one ought to be tested past 0.1 >> after surgery. > > In my case, yes, as mine went up very linearly about 4 quarters in a row a > cuple of years pst-op, then dropped significantly, then back up to about > .030 again, then back to about .020. HOWEVER, I'm not a statistic, > obviously ... merely one sample, proving only that PSA can bounce around > after RRP. Again, we agree. PSA can bounce around after RRP -- at least in the sub-0.1 range. > I still hope that if/when my PC does return, the supersensitive tests will > give me some extra time for research and introspection before action is > clearly required. Sorry, but your proof of bouncing, is proof that you cannot rely on any supersensitive testing until it pops up above 0.10. Which, if it occurred while doing standard assays, would tell you as much. NOTE TO NEWBIES: We are merely discussing assays post surgery, not post radiation or post ADT. -- PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08 Illegitimati non carborundum
From: Steve Jordan on 25 Jul 2008 17:44 On July 25, Steve K wrote: Quoting me: >> Each cat his own rat. Steve K replied: > Unfortunately, neither of us has a dog in the fight. W T H is this, the veterinary site? ;-) Regards, Steve J "....everyone else my age is an adult, whereas I am merely in disguise." -- Margaret Atwood
From: I.P. Freely on 25 Jul 2008 18:20 Steve Kramer wrote: > "I.P. Freely" wrote >> I still hope that if/when my PC does return, the supersensitive tests will >> give me some extra time for research and introspection before action is >> clearly required. > > Sorry, but your proof of bouncing, is proof that you cannot rely on any > supersensitive testing until it pops up above 0.10. Which, if it occurred > while doing standard assays, would tell you as much. That depends on how the PSA behaved on its way up to 0.10. I suspect I and my onc would regard a steady climb to 0.040, 0,060, .080 etc. as indication of something meaningful, in which case I'd be hitting Google again in anticipation of continued climb. If it got close to 0.1 then plummeted again, I'd react more slowly the following time. Bouncing up to 0.030 and back down *proves* almost nothing to me about 0.100 -level behavior. I.P.
From: rosbif on 25 Jul 2008 18:53 On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:49:52 -0700, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit(a)noway.nohow> wrote: >I still hope that if/when my PC does return, the >supersensitive tests will give me some extra time for research and >introspection before action is clearly required. But at what value would action be clearly required?
From: rosbif on 25 Jul 2008 18:54
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:36:39 -0700, Steve Jordan <mycroftscj1(a)cox.net> wrote: >I've never seen any reason not to know what's below 0.1 ng/mL other than >personal nervousness. I'd admit to nervousness but as someone who will do nothing before 0.2 and might wait until 0.4, I can't think of any good reason to know what's below 0.1 other than sheer fetishism. |