ctmpappy
My PSA is .1 after surgery. What did your oncologist recommend for your treatment? Thanks
Bob Tierno Member
Is it .1 or .01? Less than .01 is undetectable. My surgeon/oncologist recommended no additional treatments beyond surgery and that the margins of my prostate were ok as well. Review that with your oncologist to see if the cancer penetrated the margins of your prostate. Most likely another round of lab work in three months. It's been almost three years for me and I'm now being scheduled annually for lab work.
ctmpappy Member
Thanks very much for your response.
ctmpappy Member
Dennis E. Golden Moderator & Contributor
After my prostate was removed the PSA reading was 0.02 and stayed that way for 2 years. After that I began to see a slow rise every 6 months - Some 5 years later my number reached 0.13 and it was suggested I do radiation. Because of a high Gleason at the time of surgery it was suggested consider the 6 month androgen deprivation (Lupron) shot prior to follow up treatment.
Did the 40 external beam and the shot - (Lupron was not fun) so far all is well 3 years later. Today I would look into Proton as well. Docs here suggest doing radiation after surgery and prior to your reaching 0.10 ... Dennis(ProstateCancer.net TEAM)
ctmpappy Member
ktmmike Member
I had a Gleason 3+4 7, PSA of 7.8 prior to surgery. There was a positive margin. First PSA after surgery was a .03. 4 months later it was a .05. My surgeon told me "you still have cancer and will need radiation". He plans to use a PSMA PET Scan to pinpoint location, but PSA needs to be a 0.2 for that to work. For now it's a waiting game for PSA to increase to the 0.2. I really like the idea of being able to pinpoint it while still so small. Otherwise it's a broader radiation area I understand. My next PSA is in a couple of weeks. I'll know more then.
ktmmike Member
Diane Talbert Moderator & Contributor
ktmmike Member
No problem Richard. University of Michigan Hospital us where it would be done. That cut off level is much higher than what was told to me. I did read other studies specifically referring to 0.2 or 0.4. . I guess it is a fairly new scan so perhaps the guidance is evolving? I'll hopefully know more in a few weeks.