What does PSA =/<15ng/ml mean?

[Michael Chare]

As heading

[Bob Minchin]

Obvious really.....

PSA is less than or equal to 15nanograms per millilitre

[Andy Bartlett]

In the normal way of quoting PSA as a unitless quantity, it means a PSA of

[GB]

Actually, I think it could mean the exact opposite. Is the diagonal line a crossing-through? Anyway, simply being told less than 15 is very, very unhelpful, as 15 is rather high.

Anything over low single digits is worth following up, although there are a lot of false positives on this test, so don't panic. Yet!

I was followed up because my PSA went up to 5, but it was lower on a subsequent test, and ahem digital examination was reassuring. (That was done by a specialist, not me.)

In short, go see your doctor *soon*, but view it as a precaution rather than catastrophising.

[tony sayer]

In article , Andy Bartlett scribeth thus

[Michael Chare]

That is what I am wondering.

[newshound]

Very good stuff on prostate cancer in Mark Porter on R4 this afternoon, anyone interested should have a listen.

[polygonum]

Up to 50yrs:

[Lobster]

On 29 Jan 2014, Michael Chare grunted:

I'd agree

Is "PSA =/

[GB]

Other people are saying nanograms?

[polygonum]

ng/mL = µg/L, doesn't it?

[Stephen]

And PSA is prostate specific antigen.

Normally with elevated PSA levels, it is a possible indicator of problems with the prostate gland

[Michael Chare]

Indeed, so I searched for the Promis trial and found:

They are looking for men with PSA values up to 15ng/ml in the previous three months (Less than or equal to)

[GMM]

Assuming this test was performed at a clinic, they should give you the interpretation. Variables can include the method used for the test and some report in a different range to others and it is plausible that their cutoff is 15ng/mL. The 'true' result could easily be much less if that's the only data reported. Once-off PSA is a poor indicator of anything, despite what some people may claim and it's the change in PSA that is important. Many people with no pathology can have quite high PSA results while people with problems can have low ones. If there is any significant growth (ie a tumour) then PSa will rise with that, so it's a good indicator of relapse/progression in a patient with a tumour. So - good marker for surveillance, rubbish for screening/detection.

[Dave Liquorice]

No.

nano is 1*10^-9 micro is 1*10^-6 milli is 1*10^-3

So 1 ng/ml is 1ug/l (microgram).

[Huge]

The rate of false positives in the PSA test is very high.

[polygonum]

That *is* what I posted (logically but not typographically) - and how it appears to me in my post - but somehow the Greek-mu has disappeared from the quoting in your response. Bloomin' character sets, code pages, ...

[Tim+]

Indeed, a terrible way of quoting a figure that could be a source of considerable anxiety. If it makes you feel any better, a friend recently found that his level was over 300... :-(

Tim

[Lobster]

On 29 Jan 2014, Huge grunted:

Indeed. The Americans crow over their higher prostate cancer survival rates versus ours, but ignoring the fact that countless numbers of patients have undergone unnecessary, highly invasive procedures; up to and including major surgery which invariably leaves the patient incontinent and impotent.

Personally, as a 50-something bloke without any of the recognised risk factors for prostate cancer, no way would I have a PSA test done.

[GB]

It does indeed. Problem solved, and I'm due an eye test shortly, anyway. Hopefully, it's just my eyesight, as I can't get my brain upgraded.