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.)
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.
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.
My visit to the urologist this afternoon went just as expected, and even a little better.
With the San Diego VA Medical Center being a teaching hospital, it’s rare that I see the same doctor twice. Because I liked the doctor I saw last time because of the conversation we had and the plan that we mapped out together, I specifically requested to see her again this time. Unfortunately, a young resident showed up in her place.
That actually may have worked to my advantage.
Dr. K started the conversation by asking if I had come to a decision as to whether I wanted to do salvage radiation therapy or hormone therapy. I was a bit taken aback by that—”Haven’t we skipped a few steps here, Doc?”—but then I remembered the way that Dr. L wrote up her notes from my visit with her, it would be easy for him to come to that conclusion.
I filled in a few of the blanks with Dr. K regarding our plan to follow up the negative CT and bone scans with an Axumin or PSMA PET scan in hopes of finding the cancer before making the SRT vs. ADT decision. He dutifully reminded me that either or both scans could come back negative, too, meaning that the cancer was still likely in the pelvis or prostate bed.
Interestingly, when we were talking about the merits of the Axumin and PSMA PET scans, he immediately went to, “Why even bother with the Axumin scan; go straight to the PSMA scan.” I didn’t even have to nudge him in that direction. He and I were on the same page.
To his knowledge, though, SD VAMC had not yet referred anyone to get a PSMA PET scan, but he seemed eager to figure our how to make it happen and have me be the first (or among the first) to be referred. He wasn’t even sure where to begin, so I told him.
Instructions for PSMA Referral
I opened my file folder that I had with me and pulled out the one-page sheet that I had put together, stepping him through the referral process that UCLA had shared with me. It was all there for him, and he asked, “May I keep this?”
He did admit, though, that he had no idea how long it may take to get approval from the hospital team before he could even ask for the referral, so this may play out over a few weeks or longer. Rest assured that I’ll keep on top of this, asking for periodic updates.
I’m pretty excited that we’re moving in the direction of going straight to the PSMA PET scan, but also recognize there can be a number of administrative twists and turns along the way.
In the interim, we agreed to test my PSA again in early November, keeping on a four-month testing cycle. I’m okay with that while we’re trying to sort everything else out.
We also talked about my incontinence episodes becoming more frequent and more substantial in the last 6 weeks or so. He wanted to rule out a urinary tract infection, so he sent me off for some labs and we’ll see what they yield.
These episodes have put me back in incontinence pads for the last few weeks. Before, a sneeze or a cough would yield a few drops; now, they yield a squirt. Not good.
It’s been a week since I submitted the form on the UCLA website for a referral for the PSMA PET scan, and I hadn’t heard anything back, so I called them this morning.
When I mentioned that I submitted the form about a week ago, the agent said, “Oh. Yeah. We can’t book appointments using the form on our website. We need to take that down.” Uh. Okay. Good to know.
To schedule the PSMA scan:
The referring physician needs to call the scheduling number: +1 310-794-1005.
UCLA Nuclear Medicine will fax a referral form to the doctor to complete and return.
It will take 24-48 hours to process the returned form.
They’ll work with the patient to select a date for the scan.
They are currently scheduling appointments in September, so there’s a bit of a delay which isn’t all that surprising.
Now all I have to do is convince my doctor at the VA to go through the process once we get the bone scan results back. I’m not sure how that will go, but you can bet I’ll push pretty hard to make it happen.
If they insist on doing the Axumin scan at the VA first, I guess I’m okay with that. But if that comes back negative, I’ll really press for the PSMA PET scan. I’m just not all that keen on having all this radioactive juice injected in me over the course of a few weeks.
This morning, I went onto the UCLA website and filled out the form to request more information about the Ga68 PSMA PET scan and perhaps even schedule an appointment with them. We’ll see how long it takes for them to respond. I’m gue$$ing it may be pretty quickly as they want to get more people using their test and facility. Ju$t a hun¢h.
“Cynic, table for one. Cynic.”
That contrast used in the CT scan yesterday really kicked my butt. The juice was injected into me shortly after 2 p.m., and as I was heading to bed around 9 p.m., I could still feel some of the side effects from it.
I did drink a lot of liquids to help purge it from my system and that translated into multiple runs to the toilet through the night last night. Oh well. It all caught up with me around 2 p.m. this afternoon when my ability to focus just ran head-on into a brick wall. I hung it up at the office and came home.
I just checked for the scan results online, and nothing posted yet. I suspect it will be on the weekend that I’ll be able to see them. Of course, they’re usually written in such a away that a lay person has trouble comprehending what’s on the page. We’ll give it a try, though, when the time comes.
That’s about it for today. Hopefully, the next post has news about the PSMA test or the CT scan results, or both.
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.
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.
Dan's Journey through Prostate Cancer 