Here’s another informative video from the Prostate Cancer Research Institute for the ten percent of patients for whom PSMA PET scans may not work.
If I go for a third PSMA PET scan later this summer, and it fails to show anything at an even higher PSA level than my first two inconclusive scans (0.22 ng/mL and 0.37 ng/mL), I may find myself in that category.
I’ll provide my normal monthly update next week after my visit to the urologist on 14 May.
PSMA PET scan No. 2 is behind me.
This was different from and easier than the first one. That’s because the VA just did a PET scan today, whereas my scan at UCLA included a CT scan on top of the PET scan.
That fact really didn’t occur to me until all was said and done. I’ll have to ask the doctor about the đifferent approaches.
In any case, today they juiced me up with Gallium-68 shortly after arrival. About 45 minutes later, I was on the scanner table ready to go. I barely felt the table move me through the scanner, and it took about 45 minutes to complete the scan.
Of course, the technician wouldn’t give me any sneak peak insights. “The doctor will interpret the scan.” I expect it could take a week or so for me to see any notes in my online records.
Again, even with my PSA closing in on 0.40 ng/mL, there’s only about a 50-50 chance it will give us any useful information at that PSA level. (As a refresher, my PSA going into the UCLA scan was 0.22 ng/mL.)
More to come.
Here’s a very informative 23-minute video for both the newly diagnosed and those of us who have been playing with this for a while. It gives a good overview of prostate cancer, imaging in general, and PET imaging specifically.
Dr. Kwon is from the Mayo Clinic and, as I recall, was an early advocate of using PET imaging in identifying and treating oligometastatic prostate cancer.
This video was from the Prostate Cancer Research Institute (PCRI) YouTube channel. I’m not sure when Part 2 will be released.
Over the weekend, I received a letter from my health insurance company explaining the denial of covering the cost of the PSMA PET scan. This differs from what the representative told me via email (UCLA didn’t send all of the necessary paperwork) and carries far more weight, as it appears that a medical review was done. The redacted section below is the name of my insurance provider.
In a nutshell, because my PSA is 0.22 ng/ml, it doesn’t reach their threshold of 1.0 ng/ml, they deem the scan “not medically necessary” and won’t cover the cost.
The insurance company may have a limited point in their comment, “Use of this study would [not] improve the outcome” with my PSA level being so low. Realistically, the chances of the cancer metastasizing while waiting for the PSA to go from 0.22 to 1.0 are miniscule—especially with my PSA doubling time—and the treatment options would likely be the same: Salvage radiation, perhaps with hormone therapy as well.
However, the insurance company is missing the larger point: The whole purpose of having highly sensitive, highly specific scans like 68-Ga PSMA PET is to locate cancer early so that you can come up with an effective treatment plan that hopefully does, in fact, have a positive impact on the outcome and survival.
My urologists were supportive of getting the scan, so I’ll see if I can’t get them to help convince my insurance company through a formal appeal that this is, in fact, medically necessary.
As far as the scan itself, it’s less than 24 hours away. UCLA Department of Nuclear Medicine did remind me that I have to fast for at least six hours prior to the scan, drinking only water. No juice, no coffee, just water.
I’ll let you know how it went.
Be well!
Here’s a good overview of PSMA diagnostics by Dr. Calais, one of the UCLA doctors involved with getting 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET approved by the FDA. It’s a bit on the technical side, but it does show the strengths and limitations of the imaging technique.
Let the radioactive fun begin!
I was able to schedule my bone and CT scans this morning with considerable ease. In fact, things will happen much sooner than I thought they might. My CT scan is scheduled next Wednesday, 14 July, and my bone scan is scheduled Friday, 23 July.
I have to go for some pre-scan lab work tomorrow afternoon to ensure that my kidneys are working fine and won’t be damaged by one of the contrasts.
I haven’t given up on the Ga-68 PSMA PET scan. In fact, I wrote my health insurance company an email about 4:30 a.m. as I tossed and turned. (Last night was hell. If I slept more than 2 hours—non-consecutively—that was about it.) They tout having a response within 2 business days, so we’ll see if they come through with that.
UCLA is out of network for my insurance company, so I’d have to cough up 40% of the cost if they’re going to cover it at all. I’m okay with that. (For my overseas readers, welcome to U.S. health care systems!)
So that’s the latest and greatest. More to come, I’m sure.
Be well!
This is a really interesting (at least to me) video out of the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Remember that UCSF and UCLA were the two institutions that did considerable work to get the Ga-68 PSMA PET scan approved by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2020.
First, at the 3:04 minute mark in the video, he presents the number of positive scans by PSA level. Interestingly, he references the same study I posted earlier. What differs in this presentation from the other one I posted is that this looks at PSA values <0.2 and from 0.2-0.49, whereas the other study just looked at positive scans for PSA values <0.5. However, something seems off between the two.
In the original study, it showed a positive detection rate of about 38% for PSA values <0.5. In this video, however, the chart appears to show a positive detection rate at the <0.2 PSA level somewhere north of 40%, and a positive detection rate at the 0.2-0.49 PSA level somewhere north of 50%. Perhaps he wasn’t all that skilled at making bar charts in PowerPoint, but something is amiss.
Where I’m encouraged is that it appears that they are, in fact, able to detect cancer at my PSA level or even lower. The only question is, at what rate? I’ll stick with the one in three value for now, which is still better than zero.
I did email one of the doctors on the team at UCSF, and his response was:
There are no guarantees, but there is a chance that a PSMA PET could detect a site of recurrence with a PSA of greater than 0.2. The chance of detection usually increases as the PSA goes up.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of his own product, but I think that’s more to couch expectations because this is so new and even he is still trying to figure it out. (I admit, I was surprised that he even responded, so I’m thankful for that.)
I’ve got a good list of questions ready for my appointment on Tuesday, and I’m sure I’ll spend some of this holiday weekend adding to it and refining it.
Stay tuned for more.
Wow. This could not be more applicable to my current circumstances and certainly gives me food for thought.
I came across this video highlighting Ga68 PSMA PET imaging from the doctor at the University of California San Francisco who helped with developing this imaging technique. It’s a bit long and a bit technical in some places, but gives a good overview.
This is great news for prostate cancer imaging. It’s something that I’ll look into should my PSA keep creeping upward.
Dan's Journey through Prostate Cancer 