PSA Doubled in One Year

My surgery was 8 years ago, my Gleason score was 7. My next several years of psa scores were all less than 1. I rarely even think about it anymore.

My father had PC, and although it didn't get him, his last year he had to use a catheter that he absolutely hated. He couldn't have surgery because his heart wouldn't take surgery. So those memories were a big motivating factor for me.

And I had to change urologists. My first one ( young guy, new practice) was upset that I did not let him operate on me at our local hospital/ band aid station. He became very petty. But I was treated well at the u of m (four hours away) and had a great dr skilled at robotic surgery. Trusting your dr is important. I was operated on in the early morning and released the next afternoon.

All in all I feel good about how everything went.
 
First, quit posting here and get active on:

https://www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35

I AM A SURVIVOR. A doubling is troubling but you should compare rises over time. If it goes up fast over a year or two that's called "Velocity" and is a bad sign. All tests must be done at the SAME LAB to compare results with any meaning. That's very important.

Yes there is non-invasive imaging you can utilize but they can miss the tumor(s) and also most all insurance companies won't pay for them unless you had the biopsy first. They are trying to reduce the expense of an MRI by weeding out those who don't have to have it.

The biopsy is a series of probes, guided by an MRI, towards what looks to be the tumor(s) and hurts like hell so demand a painkiller. It is the best way to tell if there is cancer and what level of aggressiveness it is, although even their probes may miss it. There are different levels of aggressiveness of PC, called the Gleason Score, and the biopsy tells them what Gleason Level you are and if the tumors are close or far from the prostate's outer wall. Men with a low Gleason Score are assigned Watchful Waiting, sometimes for many years and the doctors hope you'll get so old you'll die of something else. The higher the Gleason Score and the closer it is to the outer wall of the prostate, the more aggressive the intervention. The Gleason Score is different than your PSA score, which is controversial because it does not tell aggressiveness.

The biopsy said mine was a Gleason 7 but after surgery it turned out to be an 8! The most aggressive, worst kind. Had I not had the needle biopsy they may have waited and it would have spread. Remember this: the initial tumor won't necessarily kill you but once it leaves the prostate, often through the lymphatic system, it can become a number of other cancers and then they play Whack-A-Mole. So don't fret yet, but this single doubling is how I started, and the digital exams said my prostate was large, and over a year it kept rising so fast, a "Velocity" that led to more digital exams, and then the biopsy, then the MRIs, then Davinci surgery. My tumor was so large I was not a candidate for radiation. You will find, once you do a deep dive, there are two camps among patients: Anti-Surgery and Anti-Radiation, but listen only to the cancer specialists in white coats.

Some people are candidates for radiation, others surgery, others through hormone treatment. However, I'd strongly suggest staying away from those free standing, individually owned by urologists and radiologists, Prostate Cancer Clinics because they have a very strong economic incentive, especially if they have an MRI machine or are partners in one, to steer you to radiation. They advertise aggressively, have slick videos, but they are selling you on their treatment because they make money. I knew that I was not a candidate for radiation but went to hear their approach anyway, and invariably they tried to sell me on radiation even though my tumor was too large, so beware of them. Doctors who are on staff at a hospital get the same paycheck not matter how they treat you.

Once I realized I had Gleason 7, the kind that can kill you fast if it becomes an 8, I ditched my local hospital and "went downtown" to a large teaching research hospital specializing in cancers.

So in sum, don't worry too much just yet but be very concerned if over several months the results keep rising at the same lab. Remember not to ejaculate or bicycle a day or so before the tests. If the results are rising then go to the largest teaching hospital in your area, get the biopsy done and see what that says. If it's indecisive or bad news, meaning a higher Gleason Score, then you'll get the MRI. You must know your Gleason Score, that tells you how much you have to worry, how fast it will grow and the biopsy tells you how close to the prostate's outer wall it is. You don't want the horse to leave the barn.

Lastly, PC is one of those conditions where everyone will tell you anecdotes that are meaningless. PC is a very individualized cancer, every man's PC is unique, but once you're diagnosed with a higher Gleason score, then it's deadly serious (no pun intended). I've heard a million times: "My grandfather had PC and he lived to 90 something." Visit the main informational website, I volunteer at the annual 5K:

Us Too - International Prostate Cancer Education & Support Network - Us TOO

Good luck! Don't fear the finger!

Thanks for the great advice. Glad to hear you (and others here) are survivors. :)
 
So, my urologist has me on flomax and a prostate size-reducing drug. He said to expect the PSA to double due to taking these drugs. I will be taking the PSA in a few weeks and learn if the doubling is true.
 
So, my urologist has me on flomax and a prostate size-reducing drug. He said to expect the PSA to double due to taking these drugs. I will be taking the PSA in a few weeks and learn if the doubling is true.

From the Flowmax or the other drug? Or from both?

Curious because I take Flowmax by itself.
 
From the Flowmax or the other drug? Or from both?

Curious because I take Flowmax by itself.

Sounds suspicious. I'd ask again. Flowmax is nothing but a smooth muscle relaxer so it is a fairly benign drug. The size reducing drug an 5α-reductase inhibitor (Finesteride or Proscar.) They increase the risk of the most aggressive forms of cancer while reducing the chances of the less important, slow growing kind.

There is nought in the record about increasing PSA. PSA should go down as the prostate will shrink
 
I used to take Flomax and don’t remember any effect on my PSA. It did wreak havoc with my blood pressure leading to some fainting episodes on bike trips. I ditched the Flomax but always suspected it may have precipitated my ongoing periodic tachycardia episodes which are distracting but not a big deal.
 
My urologist said the finesteride will increase PSA. I mentioned the possibility of increased incidence of prostate cancer. He said that was a small VA study that has since been debunked. From everything I read about those of who suffer with enlarged prostates, there are no really good solutions. All seem to have inherent risks
 
From everything I read about those of who suffer with enlarged prostates, there are no really good solutions. All seem to have inherent risks

I have had prostate problems since the early 90's. I have been following trends and developments in prostates since then. Even my urologist says I know more about prostates than he does. He's probably exaggerating. I state this as prologue.

There's good news for prostates large enough to cause trouble but not large enough to motivate one to surgery.

In the past 4-5 years two simple, effective, well-tolerated, minimally invasive treatments have been available. Look up Rezum and Uro-lift or ask your Uro

No, not risk free. Only being perfectly healthy has no risks. But their safety profile seem almost too good to be true.
 
My urologist said the finesteride will increase PSA. I mentioned the possibility of increased incidence of prostate cancer. He said that was a small VA study that has since been debunked. From everything I read about those of who suffer with enlarged prostates, there are no really good solutions. All seem to have inherent risks
There are two distinct groups of patients in this thread: one with PC, and one with BPH. As you pointed out, one comment about finasteride/dutasteride may/may not be true. Even if there are multiple studies, another can be performed and show very different results.
I recommend that anyone concerned go to a teaching hospital to find a urologist.
 
Just completed my annual physical earlier in the week. Doctor's office called yesterday and said everything looked great except PSA doubled since last year.

In 2016 it was 2.88,
in 2017 it was 2.38
and this year it is 4.59.

I'm 58 1/2 years old at this time.

They want me to come back in a month to check PSA again.

Ok, it's been 4 weeks since my last PSA test and the results are in:

3.89 this time.

PCP performed a test for infection that was negative. He put me on Bactrim, anyway, but I could only take it for a little over a week due to an allergic reaction.

PCP recommends a visit to a urologist. I asked him for a referral to one that will utilize a 3T MRI instead of an invasive biopsy.

Any recommendations anyone may have for a specific urologist in the south eastern or south central PA or northern MD areas that utilizes 3T MRI instead of biopsy would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks to all for sharing the information and experiences in this thread.
 
PSA Doubled on One Year - Updated

I thought I would provide an update for those who have been following this thread. Again, thanks to all those who contributed to this thread and offered to me lots of things to consider.

Today I met with a highly regarded urologist at a major teaching hospital. A DRE was performed and the result is that I have BPH. This is consistent with the symptoms I have been having that many of us post 50 males know all too well. A prescription for generic Flomax (Tamsulosin HCL) was given and I am supposed to take this for a month to see if symptoms improve. If symptoms improve, I am to continue taking it.

The idea is that a larger prostate will produce a higher PSA number. So in six months, I am to have my PSA tested again. One week after that, I have an 3T MRI scheduled and then an immediate follow up appointment with the Urologist. At that time, I should have a much better idea of what is going on.

The Urologist mentioned that a 58 year old would "normally" be expected to have a PSA of about 3.5, and mine at the latest test of 3.89 is not that far off. He mentioned PSA is far from an exact science.

But given the velocity, he wants to move forward with the 3T MRI in six months, which he is certain, insurance will pay for. He mentioned his staff has become very good with the proper coding and comments needed to get it paid by insurance. I would have chosen the MRI over biopsy at this point even if insurance didn't pay a dime, remembering Marko's experience.

This plan of action is very consistent with the recommendations of those that have "been there, done that" on this board and again I thank all contributors for sharing their experiences.

Any additional comments or suggestions are welcome.
 
Last edited:
I thought I would provide an update for those who have been following this thread. Again, thanks to all those who contributed to this thread and offered to me lots of things to consider.

Today I met with a highly regarded urologist at a major teaching hospital. A DRE was performed and the result is that I have BPH. This is consistent with the symptoms I have been having that many of us post 50 males know all too well. A prescription for generic Flomax (Tamsulosin HCL) was given and I am supposed to take this for a month to see if symptoms improve. If symptoms improve, I am to continue taking it.

The idea is that a larger prostate will produce a higher PSA number. So in six months, I am to have my PSA tested again. One week after that, I have an 3T MRI scheduled and then an immediate follow up appointment with the Urologist. At that time, I should have a much better idea of what is going on.

The Urologist mentioned that a 58 year old would "normally" be expected to have a PSA of about 3.5, and mine at the latest test of 3.89 is not that far off. He mentioned PSA is far from an exact science.

But given the velocity, he wants to move forward with the 3T MRI in six months, which he is certain, insurance will pay for. He mentioned his staff has become very good with the proper coding and comments needed to get it paid by insurance. I would have chosen the MRI over biopsy at this point even if insurance didn't pay a dime, remembering Marko's experience.

This plan of action is very consistent with the recommendations of those that have "been there, done that" on this board and again I thank all contributors for sharing their experiences.

Any additional comments or suggestions are welcome.

Please keep us updated. I take Tamsulosin HCL but my PSA is consistently between 0.7 - 1.4 for 9 years now. I still worry at 74 years old.
 
I thought I would provide an update for those who have been following this thread. Again, thanks to all those who contributed to this thread and offered to me lots of things to consider.

Today I met with a highly regarded urologist at a major teaching hospital. A DRE was performed and the result is that I have BPH. This is consistent with the symptoms I have been having that many of us post 50 males know all too well. A prescription for generic Flomax (Tamsulosin HCL) was given and I am supposed to take this for a month to see if symptoms improve. If symptoms improve, I am to continue taking it.

The idea is that a larger prostate will produce a higher PSA number. So in six months, I am to have my PSA tested again. One week after that, I have an 3T MRI scheduled and then an immediate follow up appointment with the Urologist. At that time, I should have a much better idea of what is going on.

The Urologist mentioned that a 58 year old would "normally" be expected to have a PSA of about 3.5, and mine at the latest test of 3.89 is not that far off. He mentioned PSA is far from an exact science.

But given the velocity, he wants to move forward with the 3T MRI in six months, which he is certain, insurance will pay for. He mentioned his staff has become very good with the proper coding and comments needed to get it paid by insurance. I would have chosen the MRI over biopsy at this point even if insurance didn't pay a dime, remembering Marko's experience.

This plan of action is very consistent with the recommendations of those that have "been there, done that" on this board and again I thank all contributors for sharing their experiences.

Any additional comments or suggestions are welcome.


No doctor here but I have never heard that an enlarged prostate leads to elevated PSA. I have been on Flomax and now Tamsulosin for 10 years and my PSA is about 1.5. My PSA did not budge before and after taking meds.
 
I thought I would provide an update for those who have been following this thread. Again, thanks to all those who contributed to this thread and offered to me lots of things to consider.

Today I met with a highly regarded urologist at a major teaching hospital. A DRE was performed and the result is that I have BPH. This is consistent with the symptoms I have been having that many of us post 50 males know all too well. A prescription for generic Flomax (Tamsulosin HCL) was given and I am supposed to take this for a month to see if symptoms improve. If symptoms improve, I am to continue taking it.

The idea is that a larger prostate will produce a higher PSA number. So in six months, I am to have my PSA tested again. One week after that, I have an 3T MRI scheduled and then an immediate follow up appointment with the Urologist. At that time, I should have a much better idea of what is going on.

The Urologist mentioned that a 58 year old would "normally" be expected to have a PSA of about 3.5, and mine at the latest test of 3.89 is not that far off. He mentioned PSA is far from an exact science.

But given the velocity, he wants to move forward with the 3T MRI in six months, which he is certain, insurance will pay for. He mentioned his staff has become very good with the proper coding and comments needed to get it paid by insurance. I would have chosen the MRI over biopsy at this point even if insurance didn't pay a dime, remembering Marko's experience.

This plan of action is very consistent with the recommendations of those that have "been there, done that" on this board and again I thank all contributors for sharing their experiences.

Any additional comments or suggestions are welcome.

I'm thankful you found a specialist you have confidence in and are able to utilize the modern diagnostic tools. Best wishes to you.
 
Just completed my annual physical earlier in the week. Doctor's office called yesterday and said everything looked great except PSA doubled since last year. In 2016 it was 2.88, in 2017 it was 2.38 and this year it is 4.59. I'm 58 1/2 years old at this time.



They want me to come back in a month to check PSA again.



Anyone have similar experiences or information on this they would be willing to share?



Make sure you aren’t doing few ‘no’s’ 48 hours before PSA testing.
Like Participate in vigorous exercise and activities that stimulate or “jostle” the prostate, such as bike riding, motorcycling, and riding a horse, ATV, or tractor, or getting a prostatic massage for 48 hours before your test.
Participate in sexual activity that involves ejaculation for 48 hours before your test. Ejaculation within this time frame may affect PSA results, especially in younger men.
 
I no longer get PSA tests. As this thread illustrates, there are a lot of false positives (75% of positive outcomes are false) which leads to unnecessary treatments and surgeries. Basically, when faced with a positive PSA, there is a tendency to be aggressive "just in case" which can lead to complications like ED. There is a lot of debate about PSA so you should look into it yourself. It is a money maker for the medical business so they want to keep doing it.
 
I no longer get PSA tests. As this thread illustrates, there are a lot of false positives (75% of positive outcomes are false) which leads to unnecessary treatments and surgeries.

There are many causes of a high PSA. None of those causes are a 'false' indication of anything.

If you have a high PSA, that indicates that something caused it to be high.

When combined with digital probing and possibly imaging a urologist may determine it is smart to do a biopsy.

PSA tests do NOT cause any surgeries to be performed.

Only after the pathology report comes back from a biopsy, showing cancer is surgery even considered. Even then it depends on the Gleason score.

PSA tests by themselves do NOT lead to surgery.
 
I no longer get PSA tests. As this thread illustrates, there are a lot of false positives (75% of positive outcomes are false) which leads to unnecessary treatments and surgeries. Basically, when faced with a positive PSA, there is a tendency to be aggressive "just in case" which can lead to complications like ED. There is a lot of debate about PSA so you should look into it yourself. It is a money maker for the medical business so they want to keep doing it.




This is really bad idea and the false positive rate is not 75%. You might kill someone spreading that misinformation.
 
The false positive rate for the standard 4 ng/mL cutoff most commonly used is indeed 75%. Most screening tests have high false positive rates. https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet On the government fact sheet read under 'Limitations and Potential Harms of PSA test'. It is worse than that though as many cancers detected are relatively benign and would not be fatal or even ever found without screening. There are many potential downsides to screening and more and more professional organizations are not recommending routine screening.

Offgrid Farmer is incorrect. The 4 ng/mL cutoff that has been chosen is arbitrary and many absolutely normal men will have levels above this without having one of the 'causes'. This is part of normal biological variation. We are talking about many bell curves the largest of which is for the truly normal population (with respect to the prostate) and others for those with prostate cancer, BPH, prostatitis, and many other situations.

The test is no panacea and certainly does have the potential to and has caused harm. It has also saved lives. The difficulty is finding the balance and recognizing that there might be other ways to save these lives with less negative impact and cost.
 
Last edited:
I have had “elevated” PSA readings for probably 15 years (am 58) and have been diagnosed with BPH. Now I am about 5.5 I believe and they slowly been increasing over time. A year ago I had another biopsy (father had prostate cancer so I am considered high risk). This time (and confirmed with follow up biopsy a month ago) they detected a slow growing form of cancer in 1 of the 12 samples.

I have a low grade Gleason score so have decided to do watch and wait strategy.
 
According to the NIH (National Institute of Health), the false positive rate is 75%. Here is the link to the NIH report:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3183963/


This will be my last post on the subject. I think this number comes from this study where, for a small select group of people with a positive test:
"Most men with an elevated PSA level turn out not to have prostate cancer; only about 25% of men who have a prostate biopsy due to an elevated PSA level actually are found to have prostate cancer when a biopsy is done (2)."
https://www.cancer.gov/types/prostate/psa-fact-sheet


So for the group of people with a positive test many of them do not really have cancer.


The false positive rate for the entire population can be found here:
Conclusions:

"The false negative rates for men with PSA <3.0 ng/mL and negative sextant Bx are extremely low but not negligible. Proper risk stratification before deciding to biopsy is expected to hardly miss any clinical significant PCa diagnosis. This is especially relevant with the increased use of the relatively expensive multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) guided targeted Bx procedures."


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29594020
 
Last edited:
A high PSA score is NOT a 'false' positive of anything.

A high PSA score accurately tells you that your PSA score at that moment is high. If you want to try and predict cancer or some other such thing, from a high PSA test, that is on you.

Stop trying to blame PSA tests for some other thing.

Saying that a high PSA score is a 'false' positive, is making the false assumption that someone is reading your PSA score and trying to predict cancer.

If you have a high PSA, that indicates that something caused it to be high. That is all it does.

When combined with digital probing and possibly imaging a urologist may determine it is smart to do a biopsy.

PSA tests do NOT cause any surgeries to be performed.

Only after the pathology report comes back from a biopsy, showing cancer is surgery even considered. Even then it depends on the Gleason score.

PSA tests by themselves should NEVER lead to surgery.

I have been through this myself. I had a PSA of 25 and a Gleason of 9 in 10 out of 12 core samples.
 
And then we have most clinical situations, where there are multiple PSA tests.
As more results are taken in combination with examination, and so on, you get a truer picture.
 
Back
Top Bottom