And as you can see from this study, the number of patients that were free from biochemical recurrence at 4 years was ZERO if their initial uPSA reading was => 0.02! In both high-risk and low/intermediate NCCN risks groups.
https://academic.oup.com/jjco/article/47/1/74/2527621
Sorry Jazj, some of the assertions in your posts are either confused or misrepresented and could cause unnecessary anxiety. For example, the report you quote here is specifically related to men with positive margins, not all men. Plus it was done in 2017 and other more recent research has usurped it.
A couple of the research papers you quote use a different scale as well so when making comparisons, make sure you are comparing like for like (ng/ml)
Edited by member 16 Jul 2022 at 13:36
| Reason: Not specified
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards." Soren Kierkegaard
|
User
Originally Posted by: Online Community MemberHi jazj, Radicals has proven zero benefit for early salvage therapy before 0.2 I believe tempered by G score and I suspect PET detectable disease.
Upshot is going before 0.1 in most cases has no benefit.
This was my conclusion also after reading all the studies although there is controversy (not a wide body of data) in the 0.1-0.2 range. As the nomogram showed though, the decrease in chance of cure going from 0.05 to 0.1 to 0.2 could be considered negligible in the context of the importance of the other pathological features (mainly Gleason and positive margins) that should also be considered. I think the important thing is the ultrasensitive test can help you keep an eye on how fast things are rising starting at 0.05 and then factor in scheduling lead time as to not over shoot 0.2 too far on salvage timing.
The studies have shown the sensitivity of the PSMA PET Scan below PSA of 0.5 is low. I imagine some Oncologists may still order it if you are at a 0.2-0.4 to rule out any macrometastases outside the prostate bed to target. But at that low of a PSA it's not going to catch everything so I see it only as a way for the hospital and Pylarify maker to make more money off the insurance company as opposed to having a high chance of producing new actionable information.