HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

PCA-3 Revisited

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 5/30/2012 11:02 AM (GMT -5)
I recently posted a comment about PCA-3, basically wondering why they don't just use this test (much more specificity) instead of the PSA. That might also result in scrapoping the PSA arguments.

Anyway, here is a recent article and apparently others are coming to that same conclusion:

http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.8081253/k.C673/Urine_Test_Shows_Promise_in_Reducing_Prostate_Cancer_Biopsies.htm?utm_source=newspulse&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=may-newspulse&msource=MAYNP12

 

Posted 5/30/2012 12:06 PM (GMT -5)
Seems like the test has a lot of promise. I know I would have liked to seen the results from it before I had the biopsy.

Hopeful more doctors will start using it.
Posted 5/30/2012 1:26 PM (GMT -5)
While PCA3 is used today as a supplemental test to see whether it is appropriate to go to biopsy, I like the discussion in the PCF article you linked to discussing how it might be used in the future to identify indolent from aggressive tumors--this is still being researched. This is where our greatest testing needs are.

Today, we can separate indolent from aggressive if we used case characteristics and time, but a test similar to what is being researched would enable us to have that same information at the time of diagnosis...which would help prevent the "get-it-out-now" over-reaction that often accompanies the cancer hysteria experienced even by low-risk men.
Good conversation about PCA3 in THIS HW thread from >2.5 years ago (compiler, this was when you had your PCA3 test). If you want to learn more about PCA3, read this thread.
Posted 5/30/2012 1:37 PM (GMT -5)
Casey:

Yes, when I had my test, it was only because I consulted at Umich and they said it was ready for prime time, although at that point it was not officially approved but it was being done at a few sites, obviously including Umich. Surprisingly, my insurance covered it (10% co-pay).

But, isn't this also the situation with many of the genetic tests on the pathology that Zufus and others mention -- things like ploidy analysis and whether or not it is diploid? I have no idea what all of them means and, more importantly, how useful this all is. For example, my next step will be HT. Unless a genetic test can tell me with say 85% certainty what's going on, my next step will be unchanged. But if a test says 85% chance it will be non-aggressive, maybe that helps determine my next step.

Very interesting

Mel

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply