As heading

--
Michael Chare

Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre

On 29/01/2014 16:59, Bob Minchin wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre


Actually, I think it could mean the exact opposite. Is the diagonal line
a crossing-through? Anyway, simply being told less than 15 is very,
very unhelpful, as 15 is rather high.

Anything over low single digits is worth following up, although there
are a lot of false positives on this test, so don't panic. Yet!

I was followed up because my PSA went up to 5, but it was lower on a
subsequent test, and ahem digital examination was reassuring. (That was
done by a specialist, not me.)

http://prostatecanceruk.org/informat...st#resultsmean


In short, go see your doctor *soon*, but view it as a precaution rather
than catastrophising.

On 29/01/2014 17:19, GB wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:59, Bob Minchin wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre


Actually, I think it could mean the exact opposite. Is the diagonal line
a crossing-through? Anyway, simply being told less than 15 is very,
very unhelpful, as 15 is rather high.


That is what I am wondering.




--
Michael Chare

On 29 Jan 2014, Michael Chare mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk grunted:

On 29/01/2014 17:19, GB wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:59, Bob Minchin wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre


Actually, I think it could mean the exact opposite. Is the diagonal line
a crossing-through? Anyway, simply being told less than 15 is very,
very unhelpful, as 15 is rather high.

I'd agree

That is what I am wondering.

Is "PSA =/15ng/ml" the verbatim result of an actual PSA test, or a band
printed on a form or something? Was it handwritten or printed?

--
David

GB wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:59, Bob Minchin wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre


Actually, I think it could mean the exact opposite. Is the diagonal line a
crossing-through? Anyway, simply being told less than 15 is very, very
unhelpful, as 15 is rather high.

Indeed, a terrible way of quoting a figure that could be a source of
considerable anxiety. If it makes you feel any better, a friend recently
found that his level was over 300... :-(

Tim

Anything over low single digits is worth following up, although there are
a lot of false positives on this test, so don't panic. Yet!

I was followed up because my PSA went up to 5, but it was lower on a
subsequent test, and ahem digital examination was reassuring. (That was
done by a specialist, not me.)

http://prostatecanceruk.org/informat...st#resultsmean


In short, go see your doctor *soon*, but view it as a precaution rather
than catastrophising.

On 29/01/2014 16:59, Bob Minchin wrote:
Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre


And PSA is prostate specific antigen.

Normally with elevated PSA levels, it is a possible indicator of
problems with the prostate gland

"Michael Chare" mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote in message
o.uk...
As heading

--
Michael Chare

In the normal way of quoting PSA as a unitless quantity, it means a PSA of
15. Any PSA over 4 is usually something to worry about and you should get
further tests - normally an MRI scan and prostate biopsy.

In article , Andy
Bartlett scribeth thus

"Michael Chare" mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote in message
news:BaidnSJwSPlEr3TPnZ2dnUVZ8ncAAAAA@brightview. co.uk...
As heading

--
Michael Chare

In the normal way of quoting PSA as a unitless quantity, it means a PSA of
15. Any PSA over 4 is usually something to worry about and you should get
further tests - normally an MRI scan and prostate biopsy.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate-specific_antigen
--
Tony Sayer

On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Very good stuff on prostate cancer in Mark Porter on R4 this afternoon,
anyone interested should have a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s742d

On 29/01/2014 18:24, newshound wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading


Very good stuff on prostate cancer in Mark Porter on R4 this afternoon,
anyone interested should have a listen.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s742d

Indeed, so I searched for the Promis trial and found:

http://www.ctu.mrc.ac.uk/research_ar...ils.aspx?s=126

They are looking for men with PSA values up to 15ng/ml in the previous
three months (Less than or equal to)


--
Michael Chare

On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

One NHS lab says:

Up to 50yrs: 2.5 µg/L
50 to 59 yrs: 3 µg/L*
60 to 69 yrs: 4 µg/L*
70 yrs and over: 5 µg/L*

(*ranges as per Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme)

http://pathology.bsuh.nhs.uk/patholo...?tabid=132#PSA

Information like that is available from nay NHS labs.

But I have to express surprise if the units were typed as you posted. In
medicine it is a widespread convention to use capital L for litre.
(Doctors are worried about mistaking capital-I, lower-case-l and numeric-1.)

--
Rod

On 29/01/2014 19:19, polygonum wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

One NHS lab says:

Up to 50yrs: 2.5 µg/L
50 to 59 yrs: 3 µg/L*
60 to 69 yrs: 4 µg/L*
70 yrs and over: 5 µg/L*

(*ranges as per Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme)

http://pathology.bsuh.nhs.uk/patholo...?tabid=132#PSA

Information like that is available from nay NHS labs.

But I have to express surprise if the units were typed as you posted. In
medicine it is a widespread convention to use capital L for litre.
(Doctors are worried about mistaking capital-I, lower-case-l and
numeric-1.)


Other people are saying nanograms?

On 29/01/2014 20:02, GB wrote:
On 29/01/2014 19:19, polygonum wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

One NHS lab says:

Up to 50yrs: 2.5 µg/L
50 to 59 yrs: 3 µg/L*
60 to 69 yrs: 4 µg/L*
70 yrs and over: 5 µg/L*

(*ranges as per Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme)

http://pathology.bsuh.nhs.uk/patholo...?tabid=132#PSA

Information like that is available from nay NHS labs.

But I have to express surprise if the units were typed as you posted. In
medicine it is a widespread convention to use capital L for litre.
(Doctors are worried about mistaking capital-I, lower-case-l and
numeric-1.)


Other people are saying nanograms?


ng/mL = µg/L, doesn't it?

--
Rod

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:23:59 +0000, polygonum wrote:

ng/mL = g/L, doesn't it?

No.

nano is 1*10^-9
micro is 1*10^-6
milli is 1*10^-3

So 1 ng/ml is 1ug/l (microgram).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 29/01/2014 21:45, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 20:23:59 +0000, polygonum wrote:

ng/mL = g/L, doesn't it?

No.

nano is 1*10^-9
micro is 1*10^-6
milli is 1*10^-3

So 1 ng/ml is 1ug/l (microgram).

That *is* what I posted (logically but not typographically) - and how it
appears to me in my post - but somehow the Greek-mu has disappeared from
the quoting in your response. Bloomin' character sets, code pages, ...

--
Rod

On 29/01/2014 20:23, polygonum wrote:
On 29/01/2014 20:02, GB wrote:
On 29/01/2014 19:19, polygonum wrote:
On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

One NHS lab says:

Up to 50yrs: 2.5 µg/L
50 to 59 yrs: 3 µg/L*
60 to 69 yrs: 4 µg/L*
70 yrs and over: 5 µg/L*

(*ranges as per Prostate Cancer Risk Management Programme)

http://pathology.bsuh.nhs.uk/patholo...?tabid=132#PSA

Information like that is available from nay NHS labs.

But I have to express surprise if the units were typed as you posted. In
medicine it is a widespread convention to use capital L for litre.
(Doctors are worried about mistaking capital-I, lower-case-l and
numeric-1.)


Other people are saying nanograms?


ng/mL = µg/L, doesn't it?


It does indeed. Problem solved, and I'm due an eye test shortly, anyway.
Hopefully, it's just my eyesight, as I can't get my brain upgraded.

On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

Assuming this test was performed at a clinic, they should give you the
interpretation. Variables can include the method used for the test and
some report in a different range to others and it is plausible that
their cutoff is 15ng/mL. The 'true' result could easily be much less if
that's the only data reported.
Once-off PSA is a poor indicator of anything, despite what some people
may claim and it's the change in PSA that is important. Many people
with no pathology can have quite high PSA results while people with
problems can have low ones. If there is any significant growth (ie a
tumour) then PSa will rise with that, so it's a good indicator of
relapse/progression in a patient with a tumour.
So - good marker for surveillance, rubbish for screening/detection.

On 29/01/2014 16:56, Michael Chare wrote:
As heading

means you need to start taking Green Tea Supplement and stop eating red meat

--
UK SelfBuild: http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/UK_Selfbuild/

On 29 Jan 2014, Huge grunted:

On 2014-01-29, Michael Chare mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorgDOTuk wrote:
As heading

The rate of false positives in the PSA test is very high.

Indeed. The Americans crow over their higher prostate cancer survival rates
versus ours, but ignoring the fact that countless numbers of patients have
undergone unnecessary, highly invasive procedures; up to and including
major surgery which invariably leaves the patient incontinent and impotent.

Personally, as a 50-something bloke without any of the recognised risk
factors for prostate cancer, no way would I have a PSA test done.

--
David

On 30/01/2014 08:04, Lobster wrote:

The rate of false positives in the PSA test is very high.

Indeed. The Americans crow over their higher prostate cancer survival rates
versus ours, but ignoring the fact that countless numbers of patients have
undergone unnecessary, highly invasive procedures; up to and including
major surgery which invariably leaves the patient incontinent and impotent.

There are different tests that can be done, including just a digital
examination, which is not very pleasant, but hardly "highly invasive".

My cousin had a prostatectomy which has certainly not left him
incontinent. I did not ask about impotence. As the alternative was
dying of cancer, I think he was quite happy with the deal.




Personally, as a 50-something bloke without any of the recognised risk
factors for prostate cancer, no way would I have a PSA test done.

That seems rather foolish to me. You are better off having the
information. What you then do with it is up to you, and you can be as
conservative as you like. One approach is to look at the trajectory of
results, rather than the absolute level. So, a rapidly increasing PSA
would be more concerning than a high-ish but constant level.

On 30/01/2014 11:10, GB wrote:
On 30/01/2014 08:04, Lobster wrote:

The rate of false positives in the PSA test is very high.

Indeed. The Americans crow over their higher prostate cancer survival
rates
versus ours, but ignoring the fact that countless numbers of patients
have
undergone unnecessary, highly invasive procedures; up to and including
major surgery which invariably leaves the patient incontinent and
impotent.

There are different tests that can be done, including just a digital
examination, which is not very pleasant, but hardly "highly invasive".

My cousin had a prostatectomy which has certainly not left him
incontinent. I did not ask about impotence. As the alternative was
dying of cancer, I think he was quite happy with the deal.




Personally, as a 50-something bloke without any of the recognised risk
factors for prostate cancer, no way would I have a PSA test done.

That seems rather foolish to me. You are better off having the
information. What you then do with it is up to you, and you can be as
conservative as you like. One approach is to look at the trajectory of
results, rather than the absolute level. So, a rapidly increasing PSA
would be more concerning than a high-ish but constant level.



Interesting Radio 4 programme (partly) on this the other night

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s742d

For speed, the transcript of the programme is also at that website. Use
your browser to search for "sceptic" to jump straight to the start of
the relevant section

--
Chris

On 30 Jan 2014, GB grunted:

On 30/01/2014 08:04, Lobster wrote:

The rate of false positives in the PSA test is very high.

Indeed. The Americans crow over their higher prostate cancer survival
rates versus ours, but ignoring the fact that countless numbers of
patients have undergone unnecessary, highly invasive procedures; up
to and including major surgery which invariably leaves the patient
incontinent and impotent.

There are different tests that can be done, including just a digital
examination, which is not very pleasant, but hardly "highly invasive".

Not what I meant; have had the old finger myself and was pronounced
normal; which adds to my having no desire to get tested. A prostate
biopsy is a different story though.

eg try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23016259

My cousin had a prostatectomy which has certainly not left him
incontinent. I did not ask about impotence. As the alternative was
dying of cancer, I think he was quite happy with the deal.

Well, the majority (ie, well north of 50%) of patients undergoing
prostatectomy will get erectile dysfunction. Probably wouldn't be too
concerned if I was 30 years older, but it's an issue for me. I suppose
I'd rather be alive and impotent than dead, but the point is that plenty
of prostates get removed unnecessarily.

Personally, as a 50-something bloke without any of the recognised
risk factors for prostate cancer, no way would I have a PSA test
done.

That seems rather foolish to me. You are better off having the
information. What you then do with it is up to you, and you can be as
conservative as you like. One approach is to look at the trajectory
of results, rather than the absolute level. So, a rapidly increasing
PSA would be more concerning than a high-ish but constant level.

But my point is that I'm healthy waterworks-wise, have no family history
of prostate cancer, am not black, have had a negative rectal exam etc.
If I decided to have a PSA test, then if it was very low then all hunky
dory. However, because the rate of false positives is so high there
would be a good chance the PSA result would be a bit high, which would
get me and my family worrying, and set me on the path for multiple
repeat testings over a period years, which will most likely come to
nothing but keep my angst levels cranked up. So, not for me.

--
David

Lobster

But my point is that I'm healthy waterworks-wise, have no family history
of prostate cancer, am not black, have had a negative rectal exam etc.
If I decided to have a PSA test, then if it was very low then all hunky
dory. However, because the rate of false positives is so high there
would be a good chance the PSA result would be a bit high, which would
get me and my family worrying, and set me on the path for multiple
repeat testings over a period years, which will most likely come to
nothing but keep my angst levels cranked up. So, not for me.

This whole thread has come up at an odd time for me. I agree
wholeheartedly that a sense of "well being" is something that is currently
terribly undervalued by doctors and incredibly easily undermined by well
meaning but flawed screening programs. I personally resist all attempts by
my GP to undergo any sort of "well man" screening. If you go fishing in a
big enough pool you will always find something but that's a long way from
proving that you've saved any lives.

All that said, a close friend of mine in his fifties has gone from
asymptomatic to advanced metastatic prostate cancer in the space of six
months. Would screening have saved him? I dunno but I suspect not. Would he
advocate PSA screening to his friends? Dunno yet, I'll let you know. Would
I now have a PSA test (in my late fifties)? It's crossed my mind but I
think I might settle for a finger up my bum. I'm not easily scared by
thoughts of my own mortality but I definitely wouldn't want to peg it
before sixty now.

There are no easy answers and PSA testing could induce lifelong anxiety so
I think I'm inclined to wait for symptoms and signs rather than undergo
"routine" PSA testing.

Tim

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 22:53:39 +0000 (UTC) Tim+ wrote :
This whole thread has come up at an odd time for me. I agree
wholeheartedly that a sense of "well being" is something that is
currently terribly undervalued by doctors and incredibly easily
undermined by well meaning but flawed screening programs.
I personally resist all attempts by my GP to undergo any sort of
"well man" screening. If you go fishing in a big enough pool you
will always find something but that's a long way from proving that
you've saved any lives.

I was of the "I haven't been to my GP for five years and I'm proud
of this" - I suspect that my UK GP couldn't quite place who I was
when he got my delist letter. I was persuaded when I came here to
sign up for an annual check (including blood test which includes
cholesterol, PSA, blood sugar etc). Apart from anything else at the
start I could see the sense of my new GP having a baseline in case
of future problems. I think it's worth it - the second or third
check showed cholesterol moving in the wrong direction, not
problematic at that stage but changing my diet has reversed this.

Since I came here three male friends about my age (early 60s) have
died of cancer, one from prostate cancer who, his family
acknowledge, stubbornly refused to seek medical advice until too
late. But with slow growing cancers it does seem to be a hard call
whether to take a chance or risk the worst effects of surgery.

--
Tony Bryer, Greentram: 'Software to build on',
Melbourne, Australia www.greentram.com