To Ultrasensetive PSA or standard PSA that is the question

I did have a test at the Royal Marsden, who only test to 0.04, which came back as <0.04. Someone here suggested there should be standardisation of these tests across the NHS - an excellent idea.

Cheers, John.

Tough to make the decision yourself

Imagine the discussion.

'We need a new psa analyser and one measuring to 0.1 is £20,000 cheaper, takes less time plus less patients will be asking for retests and extra tests.  The downside is some patients will fall through the net.'

Manager,  'How many fall through. Very few. The savings sound good let's go for that'

Although 0.1 could be more logical if they're not going to treat you until it's higher, except for the like of Ulsterman.  Also we know Lyn's husband has been stable at 0.09.

Probably low level testing is better in the early days after surgery until they establish a trend.  Then more coarse testing could be used.  Although 0.05 sounds about right for most, to reduce spurious results as well. 

I think I'd be more worried at this time with a <0.1 result, whereas <0.05 is still quite low if it does rise and I could judge the trend.

Finally I think I'd pay for ultra sensitive for 3 years at least.

Edited by member 11 Apr 2019 at 09:23  | Reason: Not specified

You’re all worrying me now... not really. I’m happy with my four <0.1 and one <0.0.4 post-operative readings and am due for another one this month. Except my mate has just invited me to his penthouse in Geneva, so it will have to wait till May.

Gypsy Petulengro’s readings for me are quite auspicious anyway, as I am G4+3=7. I realise others are not in the same boat and not so fortunate.

Yes, I did ask my GP if I could have super-sensitive assay PSA tests in nearby Wolverhampton, and he said no. It seems the ‘National’ Health Service is really a local health service in some cases, as evidenced by the PET-PSMA scanner at the Royal Marsden, only available to local people.

Cheers, John.

Edited by member 11 Apr 2019 at 12:25  | Reason: Not specified

I only have the PSA test to one decimal place.

I had a reading of <0.1 1st June 2016, the next reading was 0.3 on 1st September 2016.

My PSA quickly rose to 0.7 by end October or so.

I can’t help feeling that if I had been tested on the ultra sensitive test a rising pattern would have been picked up earlier like with Ulsterman.

That has haunted me somewhat but would it have made any difference?

I don’t truly know bu5 I would have the usPSA if given the choice.....

"We need a new psa analyser and one measuring to 0.1 is £20,000 cheaper, takes less time plus less patients will be asking for retests and extra tests. The downside is some patients will fall through the net."

I think the equipment is standard; managers or clinical services decide what level to report to. When Leeds changed from 3dp to 1dp they already had the equipment but the findings of a large scale research project concluded that 2 or 3 decimal places is unreliable.

Edited by member 11 Apr 2019 at 16:26  | Reason: Not specified

So your saying 0.05, 0.01, 0.02 etc. are all within the same error range?

I just hope my 0.7 gets to that point

I meant 0.07 post srt and action was stated to be over 0.2 for post to and over 1.0 for post srt. It’s been a long week in a new job so my brain is fried.i think my niggle is that I had to wait for a rise to 0.24 whereas lots of people here had their oncologist jump on post rp relapse well below 0.24 which I understand increases success rates. It made me feel the post rp threshold should be lower say 0.15.

Either way I just need to wait and see

I reviewed ages ago and it was actually nearer 10 weeks between the 0.16 and 0.24 as they delayed the oncology review and I booked the test just before it.

So bad but not as bad as it could have been. Still fast DT but MSK give me 95%/80%/70% survival for 5/10/15 years with my stats very roughly as some figures were a guess.

Just gotta let the dice roll.