3 ms·

IANAD but from what I understand the PSA test has a high false positive rate.

by surfmike 10y ago

deepwave 10y ago
It can be flaky if used alone as a measure, but that's where the urine as well as Free PSA test comes in, which is used as a supplement. I just went through a PSA/Urine/Free PSA/12-needle core biopsy run. Not fun, but the doctors thought it necessary to rule out cancer.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
After the third year of steadily increasing PSA scores, my doctor was concerned even though it was below the official "get worried" mark because of my relatively young age and the trajectory. I went to a urologist, got a request for the MRI which the insurance company denied, and so had to follow up with the very unpleasant biopsy mentioned in the OP (including missed work, pain, peeing blood). All for the result to come back completely negative. That was last year, and as luck would have it, this year's PSA score dropped significantly. I don't know whether I'd say that I'm not glad to have a definitive negative answer, particularly since my father had prostate cancer. However, this false alarm did cost an appreciable amount of money, time, and suffering.
- zwieback 10y ago
  You're the classic argument against heavy PSA screening at a young age. Statistically it's probably a net negative what we're doing right now. My PC was actually caught with a digital (as in "finger") test, then followed up by a PSA.
cowsandmilk 10y ago
To clarify, a Gleason score is not from a PSA test, but from a biopsy of the prostate. So, several steps removed from the initial PSA test.
zwieback 10y ago
Yes, huge false positive rate. My urologist said this: "Statistically there's a good chance you don't have cancer. The problem with statistics is: they may not apply to you." In my experience it's really hard to keep your mind on the public health statistics of the nation when it's you sitting in the doctor's office.

3 ms·

IANAD but from what I understand the PSA test has a high false positive rate.

by surfmike 10y ago

IANAD but from what I understand the PSA test has a high false positive rate.

deepwave 10y ago
It can be flaky if used alone as a measure, but that's where the urine as well as Free PSA test comes in, which is used as a supplement. I just went through a PSA/Urine/Free PSA/12-needle core biopsy run. Not fun, but the doctors thought it necessary to rule out cancer.
CWuestefeld 10y ago
After the third year of steadily increasing PSA scores, my doctor was concerned even though it was below the official "get worried" mark because of my relatively young age and the trajectory. I went to a urologist, got a request for the MRI which the insurance company denied, and so had to follow up with the very unpleasant biopsy mentioned in the OP (including missed work, pain, peeing blood). All for the result to come back completely negative. That was last year, and as luck would have it, this year's PSA score dropped significantly. I don't know whether I'd say that I'm not glad to have a definitive negative answer, particularly since my father had prostate cancer. However, this false alarm did cost an appreciable amount of money, time, and suffering.
- zwieback 10y ago
  You're the classic argument against heavy PSA screening at a young age. Statistically it's probably a net negative what we're doing right now. My PC was actually caught with a digital (as in "finger") test, then followed up by a PSA.
cowsandmilk 10y ago
To clarify, a Gleason score is not from a PSA test, but from a biopsy of the prostate. So, several steps removed from the initial PSA test.
zwieback 10y ago
Yes, huge false positive rate. My urologist said this: "Statistically there's a good chance you don't have cancer. The problem with statistics is: they may not apply to you." In my experience it's really hard to keep your mind on the public health statistics of the nation when it's you sitting in the doctor's office.