Ultrasensitive PSA Results Meaning?

[NecessarilySo]

What does it mean, "should be considered negative":

PSA, ULTRASENSITIVE

View trends

Normal range: 0 - 0.050 ng/mL

Value

<0.015

Performed by Abbott Architect i2000 Immunoassay (CMIA)

Results obtained with different assay methods cannot be used interchangeably

The lower limit of accurate quantification for this assay is 0.015 ng/mL.

Specimens with PSA levels below the lower limit of accurate quantification

should be considered negative. In patients with a negative result for post

prostatectomy PSA, serial monitoring of PSA levels at regular intervals, along

with physical examinations and other tests, may help to detect recurrent

prostate cancer.

This test was developed and its performance characteristics determined by

Sutter Health Shared Laboratory, Livermore, CA. It has not been cleared or

approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has determined that

such approval is not necessary.

Want more information about PSA, POST PROSTATECTOMY, ULTRASENSITIVE?

Additional information

[9020B]

The result is not referring to a negative number as in a number below zero. It is saying the test is negative in detecting PSA. In other words, undetectable. Congratulations.

[NecessarilySo in reply to 9020B]

Thanks. I suppose it is like "unmeasurable", or maybe "unquantifiable". But I have seen lower measurements on this message board. e.g. healthunlocked.com/advanced...

[Justfor_]

Abbott Architect is an older analyzer model. My lab has upgraded to Abbott Alinity, two-three years now and reports undetectable as <0.003. Despite of the general belief that lower is better, I concur with the normal range being 0.050 and less. I had a 0.006, tried to up it a bit over 0.010, got only 0.008, now waiting for this test to see if fine tuning of my Bicalutamide miniscule dosage will be needed to get it over 0.010.

[Lost_Sheep]

Standard PSA testing cannot reliably quantify PSA at concentrations below 0.015 ng/mL. It takes mass spectrometry for concentrations below that level. (I am told by the chief technician at my lab) MS analysis can detect down to 0.006 ng/mL. But the boundaries of measurement are always being pushed, I just found out in another thread that cited the article at the bottom of this post.

If getting that degree of distinction is worth the cost, maybe can get your payer to go for it (or pay for it yourself). I have no idea of the cost. Apparently most oncologists think chasing that last decimal point is not worth it. Seems to produce more (needless and counterproductive to quality of life) worry in the patient without any improvement in health or survival.

This is an interesting article.

pctrf.org/pca-commentary-vo...

I spotted it in this other thread:

healthunlocked.com/advanced...

[ulfhbg]

Hi !

For a person still having the prostate left I suppose I would call a PSA of < 0.015 undetectable, unmeasurable or whatever you want to call it and congrats and take the win 👍

I really can’t see any use of having even more ultrasensitive measurement, especially if you haven’t had prostatectomy and removed the absolute biggest source of ’PSA production’.

Anyway, congrats 😃

[EdBar]

It means you are undetectable, if there is PSA the test cannot measure it because it is so low.

Ed

[j-o-h-n]

It's like not Unnecessarily So.

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n