My urologist tells me to abstain from sex for at least 3 days before my PSA test saying it could influence the results. You may want to try that before your next test.

The PSA has been shown to lead to a LOT of over treatment in the form of additional scans, biopsies, etc while not significantly altering all cause mortality. As others have said, many doctors aren't even doing them anymore in the absence of symptoms.

We generally went through a period of over screening back in the 90s-early 2000s. PSAs, yearly skin cancer checks, cardiac calcium scores, colonoscopies, etc. with very little to show for it. The pendulum finally seems to be swinging back in the other direction.

I applied for life insurance (Prudential in MI) at age 65 after retiring. Did an exam with a urologist about 7 years prior but no PSA. The insurance company sent a nurse to the house to examine me, including urine and blood samples. I'm petty healthy overall and the exam results were all great, EXCEPT the PSA of 8.4, which was surprising as there were no symptoms.

The insurance co. denied my application. Saw a urologist shortly after with a resulting PSA of 9.9. A biopsy confirmed prostate CA. Luckily it had not metastisized. Went through a prostatectomy two years ago and the last PSA in January was <0.01.

quote:

Originally posted by architect:
So, wait, you get a high PSA reading, and they want you to quit coffee, chocolate, and sex? Do you get a freebie prescription to treat the consequent depression too?

No! Quit the coffee and chocolate, increase the sex.

quote:

Originally posted by fiasconva:
My urologist tells me to abstain from sex for at least 3 days before my PSA test saying it could influence the results. You may want to try that before your next test.

It bumped my PSA from 4.1 to 4.6, so I guess your Urologist is right.

Thanks again for the replies! Any more info would be great. My last insurance was for 200K. I chose that amount because I had bought a piece of equipment for 180K and didn't want Mrs. Pal to have to sell it at a fire sale if I was gone. I agree with many of the posts here, I don't really think we need insurance at this point of our lives. Mrs. Pal is worried about the income that would be lost if I am not around. Years ago we had both thought that insurance would not be needed at this point in our lives but now that the time has come she is a little antsy about it. I will be tested at the first of the month and deal with it from there. Depending on results Rick may be getting that email from me!

Thanks again all,

Jim

In reality the insurance is just making you poorer and the insurance company richer. I get the concept of buying it.
My advice is work with your wife to put a plan together (have in place) that if she ends up with out you there is a process to follow that won't leave her pennyless (in her mind).
One component is to put the money that would be paid for a policy premium someplace instead of spending it on eating out or what ever else you spend disposable income on now. It will add up in a hurry.

I get why a spouse would be a proponent of a windfall upon loosing a loved one. I do.

Not related to the life insurance portion; I'm not a doctor, but testosterone shots will very likely increase your PSA numbers, if you receive testosterone replacement therapy.

When you stop, the PSA numbers will very often go back down unless there is another issue.

quote:

Originally posted by old rugged cross:
In reality the insurance is just making you poorer and the insurance company richer. I get the concept of buying it.
My advice is work with your wife to put a plan together (have in place) that if she ends up with out you there is a process to follow that won't leave her pennyless (in her mind).
One component is to put the money that would be paid for a policy premium someplace instead of spending it on eating out or what ever else you spend disposable income on now. It will add up in a hurry.

I get why a spouse would be a proponent of a windfall upon loosing a loved one. I do.

I don't have a dime of life insurance, but Mrs. Flash won't have to change her lifestyle one bit if I get run over by a Beer Truck.

ORC is giving sound advice.

PSA tests have a 70% false positive rate, and about a 20% false negative rate, when used as a screening test. It was originally a post cancer treatment test, where it works quite well, not a screening test. The only good prostrate screening test is an MRI, which is expensive and would consume all the available MRI slots, so the medical community uses a truly awful screening test.

About 1 man in 8 (12.5%) will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime, but only 1 in 41 men will die from prostate cancer.

quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear:
PSA tests have a 70% false positive rate, and about a 20% false negative rate, when used as a screening test.
.
.
.
About 1 man in 8 (12.5%) will be diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime, but only 1 in 41 men will die from prostate cancer.

Ergo the value of starting fairly early with getting a regular PSA to set the baseline and trend, and seeing a good doc (I use a very good urologist) for annual exams.

Most men have prostate issues after some age. Most men who are diagnosed with cancer have a very slow progression, where watchful waiting is a very rational approach after diagnosis.

Without the baseline trend, the doc doesn't know if the high PSA means aggressive cancer or something else such as infection. It does take a good doc who isn't playing defensive medicine and isn't forced into a one-size-fits-all protocol.

Family history is important. A man's odds increase if men on his father's side had prostate cancer, and how aggressive it was.

e.g. My grandfather had an aggressive cancer, and died within a year. No psa baseline, so the doc said watchful waiting, and it spread really fast. My uncle had psa every 6 months after age 50, and suddenly at age 59 it started going up across 2 tests. Despite still being below 4.0, they did more evaluation and found he had very aggressive cancer. They cured it and he is still very healthy now 20 years later.

The policy of not doing psa before symptoms seems to be a cold financial calculation and a blind statistical coin flip.

While the odds may look OK, Prostate Cancer is still the second leading cause of death in men behind lung cancer.
Most lung cancer is caused by preventable behavior.

I was diagnosed over a decade ago in my later 50's with a very localized version and the urologist recommended active surveillance and possible radioactive seeds.
I chose robotic surgery after talking to other doctors and people that had had it.
Although my risk was low, based on the numbers, I didn't want to find out years later that it had spread and I was one of those numbers. If it were to still get me, I want to know I've done all that is reasonably possible.
Because mine was very small I've had no real side effects from removing the thing other than being able to pee like I'm a youngster.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/.../key-statistics.html