Day 2,212 – PSA Results

My latest PSA test on 28 November came back at 0.06 ng/ml, up slightly from the 0.05 ng/ml back on 1 August.

That could just be the difference between a new moon and a full moon or simple instrument error. It’s a concern, but certainly nothing to panic over at the moment.

I’m glad to see that I’m consistently hovering in that 0.04–0.08 range, although, if I were to lay a trendline over the data, it would certainly be moving in an upward direction towards that recurrence threshold.

The one nagging thing that hangs over my head is those recent studies that showed PSA at 0.03 ng/ml can be predictive of recurrence. I’ll press the doctor on that again at my appointment on 29 December.

Lastly, I’ve accepted the fact that this will be my new reality: Testing, waiting, and wondering every four months. Not the path I hoped to be on six years out, but it is what it is.

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts, support, and prayers.



11 thoughts on “Day 2,212 – PSA Results

    1. Thanks, Steve. I generally agree. I think this is all fallout from the change in test labs, but there will always be that nagging little cloud hanging over my head.


  1. Cowboy10

    I’ve recently had a routine USPSA test at UTSW, Dallas. For the past 4 years after robot surgery, my number was <0.05 or undetectable. In November my test said 0.06, so I had it retested as the doctor said it could be faulty test tubes. 2 weeks later it was 0.05. Today it was 0.06. I'm not sure what this means?


    1. Hi Cowboy10,

      As you can tell, you and I are in the same boat: Very minor fluctuations in our PSA readings. I’m still trying to sort out what it means as well.

      I will say, however, that when you’re trying to measure hundredths of a nanogram per milliliter, it’s reasonable to expect some minor fluctuations in the readings. What really scared me with mine was going from undetectable to 0.08 ng/ml.

      Sadly, I can’t offer a definitive explanation, and I’d encourage you to press your doctor for a better answer or explanation.

      Here’s hoping—for both of us—it’s nothing but minor fluctuations in testing process and nothing more. All the best,



    2. Testing is so precise these days and psa can be affected by so many variables. I think it is safe to say that at less than the 0.2 line there is very little to worry about. It is what it is, and the sad fact is that prostate cancer cells are so unpredictable in their behaviour. I would ignore such minor changes as being meaningless in real terms. It is so easy to get caught up with psa numbers and the risk is we lose sight of what really matters. We live ‘with’, not ‘for’ our cancer!
      Hope I don’t sound too “preachy”.


      1. Thanks for your comment. Not “preachy” at all, and I couldn’t agree more with the philosophy of living with and not for our cancer. It’s taken me a bit longer to come to that perspective, but I’m there now.

        All the best for 2017!


        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.