Training partner had PSA test

[Getnbiggger]

My training partner had his blood work doen including a PSA test. His total PSA was 6.1 and his % of free PSA was 15%. He is concerned however he did have sex about 2 hours before the test which may have slightly elevated his PSA. I told him to get abstain from sex for 72 hours and get another test and if still high go see a urologist. Any thoughts ? thanks for any input.

 

[bigNsmall]

He had sex 2 hours before taking the test? Interesting.

 

[Getnbiggger]

He had sex 2 hours before taking the test? Interesting.

Test was mid morning and have had sex with his wife that morning

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[thebigbus]

how old is he? Definitely needs repeat, and with abstinence 48-72hrs. The % free is a little concerning but is in the "grey zone".

 

[Getnbiggger]

how old is he? Definitely needs repeat, and with abstinence 48-72hrs. The % free is a little concerning but is in the "grey zone".

He is 51

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

Ive put the PSA studies up on this board before showing you must not ejaculate for up to 72 hours previously to a PSA test along with a whole bunch of other PSA stuff (im too lazy to look them up).....if his doctor wants to send him to get a biopsy...he really might want to study up on that and look into advanced MRI imaging of the prostate....there is a large theory by many people that if cancer is encapsulated by the prostate the very last thing you want to do is to poke 12 holes in the prostate.

I would venture to say every man in this forum who is over the age of 40 who is using some pretty heavy androgens will be kind of taken aback of where their PSA is....<----and by no means do I say that insinuating they are on their way with cancer but PSA's for people who are completely natural and are assumed to be not taking androgens....are much different than what alot of guys in this genre are doing.

The PSA test has pretty much been debunked and even the man who pioneered it is sickened by how it is used for biopsies. Its a "lets look into this more closely test" and instead doctors use it as a "Oh no..lets start poking holes into you" test.

 

[LK3]

i know its probably buried in the veterans supplies thread but, cardealer cut his in half or better n talks about how...

 

[Getnbiggger]

Ive put the PSA studies up on this board before showing you must not ejaculate for up to 72 hours previously to a PSA test along with a whole bunch of other PSA stuff (im too lazy to look them up).....if his doctor wants to send him to get a biopsy...he really might want to study up on that and look into advanced MRI imaging of the prostate....there is a large theory by many people that if cancer is encapsulated by the prostate the very last thing you want to do is to poke 12 holes in the prostate.

I would venture to say every man in this forum who is over the age of 40 who is using some pretty heavy androgens will be kind of taken aback of where their PSA is....<----and by no means do I say that insinuating they are on their way with cancer but PSA's for people who are completely natural and are assumed to be not taking androgens....are much different than what alot of guys in this genre are doing.

The PSA test has pretty much been debunked and even the man who pioneered it is sickened by how it is used for biopsies. Its a "lets look into this more closely test" and instead doctors use it as a "Oh no..lets start poking holes into you" test.

What typically is the increase in PSA value as a result of having sex prior to the test?

 

[stintman]

What typically is the increase in PSA value as a result of having sex prior to the test?

A small jump but not that far out of range. Mine went from 1.4 to 2.1 in 6
months and my urologist recommended a biopsy. Turned out tren was the
culprit (100mg tren enanthate/ 100mg test enanthate weekly TRT). Dropped
the tren and retested at 1.4.

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

What typically is the increase in PSA value as a result of having sex prior to the test?

If i remember right (im going by memory) someone would have to look it up....i remember up to double

 

[Getnbiggger]

A small jump but not that far out of range. Mine went from 1.4 to 2.1 in 6
months and my urologist recommended a biopsy. Turned out tren was the
culprit (100mg tren enanthate/ 100mg test enanthate weekly TRT). Dropped
the tren and retested at 1.4.

Was the biopsy as a result of the velocity of the increase cause 2.1 is well within normal range?

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[Getnbiggger]

If i remember right (im going by memory) someone would have to look it up....i remember up to double

Wow, that is huge.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[thebigbus]

Well, as a urologist I can say PSA isn't "useless". I find plenty of cancers in guys with normal rectal exams who have "abnormal" PSA's. I'm pretty liberal with it as well based on a patient's age, meaning If you're in your 50's and PSA is >3, repeated more than once, you're prob getting a biopsy.

MRI is awesome. Unfortunately insurance won't cover it as an INITIAL test, only if you've had previous biopsies that were either negative, or were positive and you're under active surveillance.

But yes, PSA can do crazy things based on activity. Or even at random. hence the need for always repeating it. And i *always* repeat the test, and then discuss it with the patient and give them their options. Most men want the biopsy.

And i'm finding a TON of prostate cancer lately.

 

[DOGGCRAPP]

Well, as a urologist I can say PSA isn't "useless". I find plenty of cancers in guys with normal rectal exams who have "abnormal" PSA's. I'm pretty liberal with it as well based on a patient's age, meaning If you're in your 50's and PSA is >3, repeated more than once, you're prob getting a biopsy.

MRI is awesome. Unfortunately insurance won't cover it as an INITIAL test, only if you've had previous biopsies that were either negative, or were positive and you're under active surveillance.

But yes, PSA can do crazy things based on activity. Or even at random. hence the need for always repeating it. And i *always* repeat the test, and then discuss it with the patient and give them their options. Most men want the biopsy.

And i'm finding a TON of prostate cancer lately.

I dont think i said the word "useless"....My problem is there are a great many physicians who say "time for a biopsy" without a second thought based on the PSA. And I personally feel like I said in the above post that it should be the first step with the thought "ok lets see whats going on here and take a closer look" instead of the thought "PSA is 4.1 lets start poking holes in you"....does the guy have BPH? prostatitis? did he just have sex like in the above case? Is he on 100mg of tren EOD?....I just dont agree with that thought process and think the PSA should be the first step in a thorough approach.


MP-MRI Could Help Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies | Cancer Network

 

[thebigbus]

I dont think i said the word "useless"....My problem is there are a great many physicians who say "time for a biopsy" without a second thought based on the PSA. And I personally feel like I said in the above post that it should be the first step with the thought "ok lets see whats going on here and take a closer look" instead of the thought "PSA is 4.1 lets start poking holes in you"....does the guy have BPH? prostatitis? did he just have sex like in the above case? Is he on 100mg of tren EOD?....I just dont agree with that thought process and think the PSA should be the first step in a thorough approach.


MP-MRI Could Help Avoid Unnecessary Prostate Biopsies | Cancer Network

agreed. Fully agreed.

I will say I think the bump in PSA from hormones is more negligible than we'd like to believe, unless one is genetically susceptible to DHT and therefore they're going to get BPH anyway.

There was a study done on PSA bump with TRT, and it was quite small.

Thankfully the men I see...well, zero are on supraphysiologic hormones. LoL. So that eliminates one possibility.

I'm hoping one day the MRI will be able to be used first, and that we'll get some better screening tests. But until then....DRE+PSA is kinda the best we have.

And with young PCP's hardly SCREENING for prostate cancer anymore...well, let's just say things have already switched back to the "old days" where men are showing up with higher and higher grade prostate cancer, and even showing up with bone mets. Not a good situation.

 

[Getnbiggger]

So it's fair to say that he should get retested. How long after first test should he wait and what issues other than sex should he be aware of to ensure an accurate test?

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

 

[thebigbus]

So it's fair to say that he should get retested. How long after first test should he wait and what issues other than sex should he be aware of to ensure an accurate test?

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

half life 2-3 days, so after 5 half lives, give or take. I just say minimum 2 weeks, most guys i recheck in 1 month.

 

[3rdocagt]

PSA tests

Had a PSA on Dec 17th that came in at 6.6. Had sex the morning of testing.

Typically my PSA is 3.5-4.0 with abstinence of 48 hrs. Re-tested 3 wks later with a 48 hr abstinence and it came back in the usual range at 3.96.

Urologist had some interesting things to say. Having sex before test can result in small or large changes in test results depending on the individual. Even though the PSA is the gold standard its really not that reliable as an indicator of getting prostate cancer. In his 15+ yrs of practice he has seen patients with very low and very high PSA scores both get prostate cancer and also not get cancer. He almost went as far as saying (but didn't) that the PSA test is a useless one ...but it's all they have to work with.

 

[LK3]

agreed. Fully agreed.

I will say I think the bump in PSA from hormones is more negligible than we'd like to believe, unless one is genetically susceptible to DHT and therefore they're going to get BPH anyway.

There was a study done on PSA bump with TRT, and it was quite small.

Thankfully the men I see...well, zero are on supraphysiologic hormones. LoL. So that eliminates one possibility.

I'm hoping one day the MRI will be able to be used first, and that we'll get some better screening tests. But until then....DRE+PSA is kinda the best we have.

And with young PCP's hardly SCREENING for prostate cancer anymore...well, let's just say things have already switched back to the "old days" where men are showing up with higher and higher grade prostate cancer, and even showing up with bone mets. Not a good situation.

ummm
maybe trt...
maybe

i have seen even small doses of primo make a big difference.
tren...

 

[metalmicky]

Ive put the PSA studies up on this board before showing you must not ejaculate for up to 72 hours previously to a PSA test along with a whole bunch of other PSA stuff (im too lazy to look them up).....if his doctor wants to send him to get a biopsy...he really might want to study up on that and look into advanced MRI imaging of the prostate....there is a large theory by many people that if cancer is encapsulated by the prostate the very last thing you want to do is to poke 12 holes in the prostate.

I would venture to say every man in this forum who is over the age of 40 who is using some pretty heavy androgens will be kind of taken aback of where their PSA is....<----and by no means do I say that insinuating they are on their way with cancer but PSA's for people who are completely natural and are assumed to be not taking androgens....are much different than what alot of guys in this genre are doing.

The PSA test has pretty much been debunked and even the man who pioneered it is sickened by how it is used for biopsies. Its a "lets look into this more closely test" and instead doctors use it as a "Oh no..lets start poking holes into you" test.

This was on the news a week or so ago U.K cancer doc stated psa test causes unnessary biopsies and prostate ops and is basically useless