Guest guest Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 > There's a document a document there ... Looks like I need a writing therapist to teach me how not to stutter when I write. Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 It went from about 6.3 to 9.4 Ted > > > My PSA has gone up 50% in 6 months and I was advised to have a second > > biopsy. But since the first one was negative I decided on a PCA3, which > > I had this morning. > > From what score to what? > > Fifty percent in six months is a rather fast velocity. I recommend > searching on PSA velocity at the Prostate Cancer Research Institute > website: http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html > > Concerning PCA3Plus (current name), it does sound promising judging by > what I've read. However: from the Bostwick website, " A PCA3Plus value of > 35 or greater suggests a high likelihood of prostate cancer. Only a > prostate biopsy can diagnose prostate cancer. This test's performance > has been established by Bostwick Laboratories. It has not been approved > by the United States Food and Drug administration and should not be used > as the sole evidence for or against the diagnosis of prostate cancer. " > > Couldn't be plainer. The test is not diagnostic of PCa, nor of the > absence of PCa. A word to the wise..... > > Regards, > > Steve J > > " was an optimist. " > -- O'Toole's commentary on 's Law > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 It went from about 6.3 to 9.4 Ted > > > My PSA has gone up 50% in 6 months and I was advised to have a second > > biopsy. But since the first one was negative I decided on a PCA3, which > > I had this morning. > > From what score to what? > > Fifty percent in six months is a rather fast velocity. I recommend > searching on PSA velocity at the Prostate Cancer Research Institute > website: http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html > > Concerning PCA3Plus (current name), it does sound promising judging by > what I've read. However: from the Bostwick website, " A PCA3Plus value of > 35 or greater suggests a high likelihood of prostate cancer. Only a > prostate biopsy can diagnose prostate cancer. This test's performance > has been established by Bostwick Laboratories. It has not been approved > by the United States Food and Drug administration and should not be used > as the sole evidence for or against the diagnosis of prostate cancer. " > > Couldn't be plainer. The test is not diagnostic of PCa, nor of the > absence of PCa. A word to the wise..... > > Regards, > > Steve J > > " was an optimist. " > -- O'Toole's commentary on 's Law > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 It went from about 6.3 to 9.4 Ted > > > My PSA has gone up 50% in 6 months and I was advised to have a second > > biopsy. But since the first one was negative I decided on a PCA3, which > > I had this morning. > > From what score to what? > > Fifty percent in six months is a rather fast velocity. I recommend > searching on PSA velocity at the Prostate Cancer Research Institute > website: http://prostate-cancer.org/index.html > > Concerning PCA3Plus (current name), it does sound promising judging by > what I've read. However: from the Bostwick website, " A PCA3Plus value of > 35 or greater suggests a high likelihood of prostate cancer. Only a > prostate biopsy can diagnose prostate cancer. This test's performance > has been established by Bostwick Laboratories. It has not been approved > by the United States Food and Drug administration and should not be used > as the sole evidence for or against the diagnosis of prostate cancer. " > > Couldn't be plainer. The test is not diagnostic of PCa, nor of the > absence of PCa. A word to the wise..... > > Regards, > > Steve J > > " was an optimist. " > -- O'Toole's commentary on 's Law > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 On January 7, Ted replied: > As I say, I've already had a negative biopsy of 8 samples, and the > consultant wanted another taking 24! So I opted for the PCA3 instead. > > There's a case of someone who had 5 negative biopsies, and still had PC. Which, if true, means nothing so far as Ted's case is concerned. But it's his life and body, so best of luck. But bear in mind this from a source I haven't yet run down: " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " Regards, Steve J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 On January 7, Ted replied: > As I say, I've already had a negative biopsy of 8 samples, and the > consultant wanted another taking 24! So I opted for the PCA3 instead. > > There's a case of someone who had 5 negative biopsies, and still had PC. Which, if true, means nothing so far as Ted's case is concerned. But it's his life and body, so best of luck. But bear in mind this from a source I haven't yet run down: " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " Regards, Steve J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 On January 7, Ted replied: > As I say, I've already had a negative biopsy of 8 samples, and the > consultant wanted another taking 24! So I opted for the PCA3 instead. > > There's a case of someone who had 5 negative biopsies, and still had PC. Which, if true, means nothing so far as Ted's case is concerned. But it's his life and body, so best of luck. But bear in mind this from a source I haven't yet run down: " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " Regards, Steve J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 Steve - this " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " goes along with one of my favorites: " The focus group of one " On January 7, Ted replied: > As I say, I've already had a negative biopsy of 8 samples, and the > consultant wanted another taking 24! So I opted for the PCA3 instead. > > There's a case of someone who had 5 negative biopsies, and still had PC. Which, if true, means nothing so far as Ted's case is concerned. But it's his life and body, so best of luck. But bear in mind this from a source I haven't yet run down: " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " Regards, Steve J -- Emersonwww.flhw.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 But, but….isn’t a retrospective study an accrual of anecdotes bundled into one report at great cost? I’m confused now – again :-0 All the best Terry Herbert I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in ‘96: and have learned a bit since then. My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za Dr “Snuffy” Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with inadequate data " From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Emerson Sent: Friday, 9 January 2009 3:00 AM To: ProstateCancerSupport Subject: Re: Re: Opinions on biopsy Steve - this " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " goes along with one of my favorites: " The focus group of one " On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Steve Jordan <mycroftscj1> wrote: On January 7, Ted replied: > As I say, I've already had a negative biopsy of 8 samples, and the > consultant wanted another taking 24! So I opted for the PCA3 instead. > > There's a case of someone who had 5 negative biopsies, and still had PC. Which, if true, means nothing so far as Ted's case is concerned. But it's his life and body, so best of luck. But bear in mind this from a source I haven't yet run down: " Accrual of anecdotes is not data. " Regards, Steve J -- Emerson www.flhw.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 8, 2009 Report Share Posted January 8, 2009 > But, but, isn’t a retrospective study an accrual of anecdotes > bundled into one report at great cost? I’m confused now - > again :-0 I am reminded of the immortal saying of Feynman on wave particle duality: " If this doesn't confuse you, you don't understand it. " Alan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.