PSA < 0.1

[Echotango51]

Does this mean you are undetectable. Three months ago I was 0.1. Why not give a reading to the second or third decimal point. Not <0.1, then you would know what your PSA number really is.

[Hidden]

For the test/machine they spun the sample through yes you are undetectable.

if you want more precision you need an ultra sensitive psa test.

[Echotango51 in reply to Hidden]

Thanks for your reply.

[Hidden]

Other cells in the body express some PSA at ultra low levels. Thus an ultra sensitive PSA test is just a stress inducer!!!

[Echotango51 in reply to Hidden]

My MO at UMSC told me when my PSA reached 0.01, he’ll consider there’s nothing there. How will he tell, he sends me to the same lab?

[Tall_Allen]

Anytime you see a less than symbol ("<") it means undetectable. The reason for not having tests with more decimal points is it is meaningless. You would not do anything differently if the number were 0.01 or 0.09. More decimals create more anxiety.

[Hidden in reply to Tall_Allen]

Exactly what my MO said when I asked for ultra sensitive.

[Echotango51 in reply to Tall_Allen]

Thank you TA, that does create anxiety in me.

[lhall2 in reply to Tall_Allen]

I think you are dismissing the value of ultra sensitive PSA under certain circumstances. A little over 3 years ago, I had my prostatectomy with a grading of Tb3N1M0 from seminal vesicles involvement and 1 of 10 removed lymph nodes containing cancer. My Gleason score was 4+3=7. Conventional treatment would be whole pelvic radiation. However, I received a mixed message when my 1st two standard PSA’s can back <0.1 or undetectable in the 6 months following surgery. I wanted greater detail so I switched to ultra sensitive PSA for the next 6 months. These results were 0.028 & 0.026. At that point, I had a decision to make. The ultra sensitive PSA readings could be wrong ( used the same lab throughout), the surgeon could have left some benign prostate tissue behind (surgeon had performed over 10,000 prostatectomies) glands like salivary can produce minute amounts of PSA or I still have some prostate cancer cells floating around in me. Not wanting to play Russian roulette with cancer, I elected to start 6 month eligard injections and have 40 rounds of whole pelvic radiation. During the next two years following my radiation treatment, I have had 10 ultra sensitive PSA tests with one being 0.006 and all the rest 0.014 or about half of the pre-radiation level. Did I have prostate cancers cells that the radiation eliminated or has my continued eligard treatments and abiraterone/prednisone caused the reduction? We will never know, but I believe we should use all the “tools in the tool box” as we partner with our doctors for future treatments

[Tall_Allen in reply to lhall2]

I used to believe that too there was a benefit to earlier treatment too. Since then, 3 randomized clinical trials proved that there is no benefit to treating before biochemical recurrence.

That said, pN1 is an indicator for adjuvant radiation. You didn't need any PSAs of any kind to tell you that.

[lhall2 in reply to Tall_Allen]

thanks for the reply. However, my standard PSA of <0.1 or undetectable according to the medical community, was a great result via my doctors. N1 indicated the need for radiation but “undetectable” PSA indicated no rush. I was unwilling to wait

[Tall_Allen in reply to lhall2]

Your doctors were wrong and you were right. One doesn't need a PSA test to tell one that adjuvant radiation is required with pN1. In your situation, the ultrasensitive test only got in the way.

[lhall2 in reply to Tall_Allen]

actually the standard PSA got in the way as it was not required & gave an “undetectable” meaningless reading. The ultra sensitive PSA actually cleared it up once we went down the PSA route

[Garyzw in reply to Tall_Allen]

my psa has been allover most <.1 but one .3 several.11 latest<.14 never seen the less than .14 before. What are your thought i had my prostate removed robotically

[Don_1213]

And test accuracy and repeatability isn't great even at the standard PSA test levels. It should really read 0.1 (+/- 0.06 or so)

[EdBar]

You can get an ultra sensitive test that would detect even lower levels of PSA if you’d like. I always have gotten the ultra sensitive test, it was first recommended by Snuffy Myers, it eventually gave me an early heads up that my PSA was going up and becoming castrate resistant. This allowed me to plan a course of action with my doctor once it reached a certain point. I like knowing what is happening so I can plan, I don’t find it a source of anxiety. Since then I’ve had SBRT to a spot on my rib that showed up on a PSMA scan, likely the source of the resistant cancer and PSA has fallen to an almost undetectable level again.

Ed

[Echotango51 in reply to EdBar]

thank you ED

[FLRichardson]

This confused me earlier this year and it was amazing how little is available to clear it up. Thankfully here we have clear minds to set the record.

[monte1111]

I have been 0.2 for a long, long time. I always was an underachiever.

[RMontana]

You need to ask for uPSA testing (ultra low PSA) or you wont get readings to the thousands of a ng/dL. My PSA has hovered at 0.006 ng/dL but I have been on ADT for a total of 21 months. Now I am coming off ADT as of 6 months ago so I want to track my uPSA. uPSA has been found to be a predictor for BCR (biochemical recurrence). None of my Dr's believed in it and my cancer institute in FL now reports PSA only to "<0.04." I refused to take these tests (assays) and have obtained uPSA since. I track it and think its added information that a PCa patient should have. Dr's worry that we will fret over uPSA values, but the following studies beg to differ. See if this makes sense for you. If it does ask for uPSA testing from now on. Rick

healthunlocked.com/active-s...

healthunlocked.com/active-s...

healthunlocked.com/active-s...

healthunlocked.com/active-s...

[Echotango51 in reply to RMontana]

Thanks Rick, my uro test to 0.00. The <0.1 came from a different lab.

[slpdvmmd]

"Less then" means below the limits of the test utilized. It does not mean there is no detectable PSA it merely means none was detected within the limits of the test used. I think the role of ultrasensitive tests is evolving as imaging improves.

[j-o-h-n]

Problem was in the old IT days fly shit on paper reports was often mistaken as periods. Therefore the theory is, less periods the less the confusion. Progress...

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Monday 05/29/2023 10:18 PM DST

[GSDF in reply to j-o-h-n]

LOL!