Re: prostate calcification

[Guest guest]

jeffreyo33315 wrote:

> I was DX in 2006 with a psa of 11.2 and a Gleason of 4+3. Over

> the following 2 years I exercised and watched my diet and my

> psa varied between 8-12. A year ago it rose to 17 and now

> stands at 30. I had a ct scan last week and the results

> indicated a normal size prostate which contained several

> calcifications. My question is this....Could it be that some

> of the psa rise may have been due to the calcifications (my

> last ct scan,2006, made no mention of calcifications ?

I don't know for sure but it is my understanding that any

irritation and inflammation of the prostate causes a rise in PSA,

and that calcification is a common cause of inflammation. So I

would think that, yes, this might account for some of your

elevated PSA. How much it might account for I don't know. I

don't know if anyone does.

It is also my understanding that experts use PSA to assess

prostate cancer risk as follows:

PSA less than 10 = " low " risk

PSA between 10 and 20 = " intermediate " risk

PSA greater than 20 = " high " risk

Gleason 4+3 is also considered " intermediate " risk.

It seems to me that, even if the calcification accounted for half

of your PSA rise, you'd be well above " low " risk. Your active

surveillance program is telling you that your PSA is rising fast

enough, and your Gleason has long been high enough, that you're

no longer a good candidate for active surveillance. You're well

above the commonly used Epstein criteria for AS which, among

other things, requires a Gleason score < 7.

If you expect to live long enough to experience symptoms and want

treatment, you might seriously consider getting treatment now.

You can't know for sure if your cancer is local, but you do know

that the chances of it being local are decreasing over time.

If the cancer is still local then you have options now, including

surgery and radiation, that you won't have later.

I know it's a personal choice. I know there are men who are

willing to accept a high risk of dying of PCA to avoid or

postpone treatment. I respect those choices and understand that

every man has to make that choice for himself. So I can't tell

you what I think you should or shouldn't do. All I can say is

that, if I were in your shoes and I were not so old or sick that

I was likely to die of something else in the next five or so

years, I think that I would seek treatment right now.

Alan