a lurker
|
From: Steve Kramer on 25 Jul 2008 20:10 "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit(a)noway.nohow> wrote in message news:Uksik.3694$KZ.1362(a)newsfe03.iad... > 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. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe I'll have to revise my theory. I guess more sensitive testing can give you an extra three to six months of Googling. > > I.P.
From: Steve Kramer on 25 Jul 2008 20:20 <rosbif> wrote in message news:m8mk849vm9tjrtaeo5v1caak595ga8p904(a)4ax.com... > 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? > Again, assuming post-surgery and pre-radiation, my doctor was aggressive when he signed me up for radiation when I hit 0.37. I don't think anyone on the NG had RT with less than 0.37.... Maybe those without negative margins. Most people, especially those who had this before me, started radiation about 1.0. Of course, doctors vary. -- 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: Larry Sabo on 25 Jul 2008 22:19 "Steve Kramer" <skramer(a)cinci.rr.com> wrote: >Again, assuming post-surgery and pre-radiation, my doctor was aggressive >when he signed me up for radiation when I hit 0.37. I don't think anyone on >the NG had RT with less than 0.37.... Maybe those without negative margins. >Most people, especially those who had this before me, started radiation >about 1.0. Of course, doctors vary. My onc sent me for SRT after my PSA climbed past .1, as in... <.01, .05, .09, .12 He said that was probably the earliest he had sent a patient for SRT but that the climb was clear and steady, so it was obviously needed. I did not have negative margins, unfortunately. It's still undetectable since my SRT ended 4.5 years ago, fortunately. Cheers, Larry
From: Joe Price on 25 Jul 2008 23:56 I went on SRT when my PSA climbed to 0.35. My history (so far!): Pre surgery PSA 9.6 I underwent LRP Oct 2001. Lousy pathology (+ SV's, large volume, + margin but Gleason only 6). Post surgery PSA history: Feb 2002 0.06 July 2002 0.09 Nov 2001 0.11 May 2003 0.18 Nov 2003 0.20 April 2004 0.24 Sept 2004 0.19 May 2005 0.35 May 2005 (repeat) 0.34 Salvage Radiation Therapy at this point Nov 2005 0.59 - assume SRT failure Mar 2006 0.74 June 2006 0.79 Oct 2006 0.95 March 2007 1.6 - Start HDT (Eligard & later switch to lupron) Sept 2007 < 0.05 Jan 2008 < 0.05 April 2008 < 0.05 Decide to go intermittent Skip mid - May Lupron injection Next PSA due mid August Stay tuned for many more assay results - I hope. "Steve Kramer" <skramer(a)cinci.rr.com> wrote in message news:g6dql4$jc0$1(a)registered.motzarella.org... > <rosbif> wrote in message > news:m8mk849vm9tjrtaeo5v1caak595ga8p904(a)4ax.com... >> 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? >> > > Again, assuming post-surgery and pre-radiation, my doctor was aggressive > when he signed me up for radiation when I hit 0.37. I don't think anyone > on the NG had RT with less than 0.37.... Maybe those without negative > margins. Most people, especially those who had this before me, started > radiation about 1.0. Of course, doctors vary. > > -- > 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: rosbif on 26 Jul 2008 05:05
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:10:37 -0400, "Steve Kramer" <skramer(a)cinci.rr.com> wrote: >Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. Maybe I'll have to revise my theory. I guess more sensitive >testing can give you an extra three to six months of Googling. lol - exactly. From what I've grasped of the extent of our understanding of PCa, I think it's a mistake to believe we can treat it with such precision, that such finely judged action can really make a difference, though I respect concerning PSA monitoring one should do what makes one happy. For me the sense, no matter how illusory, that I have a period of respite 'free' of PCa is a welcome boost to my QOL, while for those obsessing over sub-0,1 values - and I recognise IP's more aggressive cancer might justify more concern - that QOL supposedly comes from 'keeping on top' of everything, almost like having a relationship with the disease. But if action isn't to be taken prior to 0.2 then the sub-0.1 rumblings are all but immaterial. What does advance warning do for someone already expert and up-to-date? Oddly enough my last test result (18 mth) came back as <0.05 - all previous results were <0.1. I mentioned this to the uro who said they'd probably started using a better test pack. Of course I'm relieved to be still <0.1 but I really do have mixed feelings about this extra detail. If my next test comes back as <0.1 what should I think? Did they run an economy drive and go back to the older (cheaper?) test pack or did I get a raise? It reminds me just a little of the old poser; if there were an over-the-counter test available to establish the date of your death, would you want to know? I suspect where more accurate PSA tests are routinely available, we'll opt for those even at the risk of introducing a little extra uneasiness into our lives. |