nicholson Posted July 18, 2015 Report Share Posted July 18, 2015 Since prostate cancer is by far the most common cancer in males - about as common and deadly as breast cancer is in females - the following paper may be of interest. It is ten years old now, but finally the full text is available free. I had not seen the full text before and I find its contents remarkable. It is well known that a PSA value above 4.0 is considered in many places a number a person needs to pay serious attention to. Here where I am, for anyone over the age of 70, 6.5 is regarded as THE threshold number. But this paper seems to say something quite different. It was conducted in Montreal, Canada among 313 caucasians between the ages of 40 and 80, asymptomatic, apparently in good health and with no clinical evidence of prostate cancer. So it seems reasonable to suppose it may have relevance to many people here. Its PMID is: 16831142 .....Full text PDF: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06193.x/epdf Among these 313 individuals the median PSA values for those in their 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s were: 0.70, 0.90, 0.97 and 1.47 respectively. Since autopsy studies of men who died from causes other than prostate cancer show that the overwhelming majority (90+%?) of males who live long enough (and most of us expect to) do eventually get prostate cancer (but understanding that the majority do not die from it), I would have thought it might be a good idea to pay attention if your PSA is above the median values listed above. Those numbers are dramatically lower than the thresholds commonly talked about. In addition, Figure 1A in the paper shows that among the subjects in the lowest 99% of PSA values in this group there was not one, at any age, with a PSA above 1.5. Seems to me then that any value above 1.5 should be considered anomalous. Their note attached to Figure 1A says: ".... the curve shows that PSA levels should be <1ng/ml for men aged <70 years." Based on these data it would be difficult to disagree. They also say that free%total PSA - a measure shown to be better than PSA at predicting the presence of prostate cancer - should be greater than 30%. Their data also show that even in their 70s some subjects have a PSA as low as 0.2. Someone needs to check out what is different about these people. Perhaps it is their genes, but possibly might it be a modifiable factor? Rodney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.