Cause for concern?

[m1946]

Would you please comment on the following article which may mean a new PET scan is required I'm my case? ( I Hope not!!)

Extract from a recent article which is double Dutch to me!!!

"...... Ignorant/lazy docs only take notice of the PSA, when it is widely known that at low PSA PSADT is equally, if not more an important factor, for estimating the probability of a positive PSMA PET/CT detection. With your PSADT of 5 months..................... You were lucky enough that your doc doesn't subscribe to silly rules of the kind: "Bellow PSA of 0.5, PSMA scan will show nothing".

My PSA on 6/3/24 was 0.57 but upon completing the Beam Therapy treatment at Genesis Care in December 2022 it was .01.

Is there cause for concern. I am 78

[Justfor_]

Hi, I am the source of the passage that prompted your attention. If you had been under ADT during the RT, then the first PSA reading of Dec 22 is irrelevant. If not, your latest one is a sound proof that you have failed RT and hence, a new pet scan could be useful. If you have any in between PSA readings, I can work the numbers for deriving your PSADT, which is the best metric there is quantifying the aggressiveness of your current stage.

[Xavier10 in reply to Justfor_]

Sound proof of failure? I think there’s probably some more information that should be gained before calling .56 “failure.” The prostate makes some PSA already, assuming he has a prostate. Notwithstanding that, a PSMA could be useful. Might, might not.

I think you are overstating the case for concern. .57 isn’t bad for 15 months out. The date of the PSA is in the future though, so that confuses me. Need more facts

[Justfor_ in reply to Xavier10]

Typical American I presume? 6/3/24 isn't "in the future" when coming from someone residing in the UK. It is the 6th day of March 2024.

[Xavier10 in reply to Justfor_]

ah, yes, my bad. I've traveled fairly extensively in Europe but I just thought it was a typo, didn't think of the European way of listing it.

but my point is .57 at 15 months out from radiation is not a bad PSA. Maybe justifying a PSMA scan or something just for curiosity, but nowhere near close to BCF. I've had a hard time finding graphs that really say what a good or bad trend line is. But the ones I've seen seen that seem to be applicable seem to include that PSA in a favorable area. Also, we don't know whether it is a bounce, not a bounce, what the previous readings are, etc. so more information would be helpful.

[Justfor_ in reply to Xavier10]

If you noticed, I offered to run his PSA numbers. There was also a very important conditional term in my post that shouldn't have passed unnoticed: His Dec 2022 PSA of 0.01 was NOT the result of concomitant ADT. Do you have any grasp of how the 0.01 to 0.57 in 15 months translates in PSADT? (spoiler: 2.5 months approx.)

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

Oh yes....... (English style) m1946 is really m4619 and he's 87 years old not 78...

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

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

03/06/2024------------------ 2024/03/06----------------- March 6, 2024.

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n

[Tall_Allen]

Ignore the idiocy you see posted on social media. All sorts of whack jobs have their own theories. Only follow what is published in peer-reviewed journals.

[NanoMRI]

Such luv in this group. I have some experience with imaging this beast; two mpMRIs, three PSMAs, and even better Ferrotran nanoparticle MRI. I say image if and when you want, or not. Clear scans provide information too. My focus is to stay ahead of this beast and not give it time and obscurity. All the best!

[Murk]

Maybe a link to a relative peer-reviewed journal would help m1946?