Six Months - Post CK Update

Swingshiftworker
Swingshiftworker Member Posts: 1,017 Member
edited March 2011 in Prostate Cancer #1
Well, just took my 3rd PSA test six months following my last CK treatment at UCSF on 9/22/10.

Let me preface by saying that my PSA scores have been very disconcerting because I experienced weird spikes following my biopsy in Jan 2010 and after CK treatment in Sept 2010, but, although the readings are NOT as low as I'd like at this point, at least the trend is back in the right direction.


I'm posting my entire PSA history (with notes) to reassure others who may also be getting inconsistent readings:

10/12/06 2.9
03/21/08 3.4
01/07/10 4.5 -- Not quite a double but urologist recommended a biospy
01/25/10 Biopsy -- Gleason 6, One one core and less than 1mm involved; confirmed by 2nd Opinion
03/30/10 29.7!! -- This freaked me out; was told it was probably caused by prostatitis
04/20/10 8.6 -- Better but still very concerned
06/22/10 5.9 -- Right direction but not much of a drop; still concerned
09/22/10 Last of 4 CK treatments -- Should have taken a baseline PSA before treatment
12/03/10 12.3!! -- Freaked out again; told again it was probably caused by prostatitis
12/15/10 9.48 -- Better but still very concerned; told to wait it out
03/23/11 3.03 -- Turned out ok, but have dreaded waiting the past 3 months

Like I said, still not as low as I'd like six months following treatment, but at least the reading now is lower than it was when I was biopsied in 2010 and almost as low as my 1st PSA test back in 2006.

The real test will be the next PSA reading which hopefully will approach the 1.0 level.

We'll see . . .

Comments

  • silverfox1
    silverfox1 Member Posts: 36
    #2
    Good to see the trend going in the right direction
    Swing, I want to thank you for sharing your PSA history post CK. As you know, I just finished my CK treatments (5) last week and have been wondering about the PSA trending and time line post CK. Currently I am still bothered by the urngency and frequency issues but have noticed that it does get a little better as each day passes. Looking forward to your success with the 1.0 psa reading!! Will be thinking of you!
  • Hearted Doc
    Hearted Doc Member Posts: 3
    #3
    Continued periodic monitoring
    Thr PSA trend suggests that the disease may have been under control. The current value basically is same as the initial one, which may be related to aging and/or BPH. Depending on how many cores you had in the initial biopsy and on your overall clinical condiiton, periodic monitoring of PSA would be suitable clinically. The initial GS of 6 suggests that your disease is relatively indolent unless your PSA hikes in the near future, whcin would prompt a rebiospy. At present, watchful waiting may be the best if I was in your shoe.
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member
    #4
    Great News
    Swing,

    Great news on your PSA numbers. You've certainly been on a wild ride with this but it seems that the effect of your CK treatments are finally kicking in. Best wishes for continuing this positive PSA trend.
  • kddh
    kddh Member Posts: 14
    #5
    Congratulations
    Thanks for posting your history and current good news. It may, as you mention, benefit someone else who reads this in the future.

    I am currently waiting for Blue Cross to approve (I hope) my CK treatment at UCSF.

    The other time I posted about going to UCSF, you told me to say hi to Dr Gottschalk. Well, I did --though since I didn't know your name it didn't have the full effect :)

    Best wishes
  • Kongo
    Kongo Member Posts: 1,166 Member
    #6
    Hearted Doc said:

    Continued periodic monitoring
    Thr PSA trend suggests that the disease may have been under control. The current value basically is same as the initial one, which may be related to aging and/or BPH. Depending on how many cores you had in the initial biopsy and on your overall clinical condiiton, periodic monitoring of PSA would be suitable clinically. The initial GS of 6 suggests that your disease is relatively indolent unless your PSA hikes in the near future, whcin would prompt a rebiospy. At present, watchful waiting may be the best if I was in your shoe.

    Confused
    Hearted,

    I've been mulling over your post for the past few days trying to figure out what you're trying to say and frankly, I'm confused.

    Swingshiftworker was diagnosed with early stage PCa after a rising PSA led to a biopsy which discovered a Gleason 6 cancer in one of his biopsy cores. He elected to have his prostate cancer treated with CyberKnife SBRT and saw an unusual spike in PSA which his medical team suspects was most likely caused by prostititis. At six months post treatment his PSA scores are dropping significantly. He has posted several other threads which have documented his decision process and medical progress in treating his cancer.

    Your post seems to indicate that his disease was "under control," whatever that means and that his PSA might have been caused by his age or BPH. While that assumption might be valid before the biopsy, the pathology report removed all doubt although in Swing's case there might have been some other factors contributing to his PSA rise.

    You write that "periodic monitoring of PSA would be suitable clinically." What does that mean in this context? All of us at this age, whether or not we have a diagnosis of PCa, should have periodic PSA monitoring.

    I'm not sure of the basis of your statement that a Gleason 6 score "suggests that your disease is relatively indolent..." What does "relatively indolent" mean? Are you suggesting that Gleason 6 cancers are inherently indolent and do not require treatment?

    You also suggest that "watchful waiting may be the best..." As you probably know, watchful waiting is a course followed by men BEFORE initial treatment which Swing elected to forego in favor of the CyberKnife treatment.

    I've read your other posts and have been similarly confused by some of your assertions. I am wondering, given your chosen name in this forum if you are a medical professional because you haven't indicated that you have had a prostate cancer.

    If you could elaborate on what you're trying to say here it would be greatly appreciated.

    K

Discussion Boards