[AnnieBL]

I used to suffer from symptoms of BPH, and PSA scores consistently about 4.5 +/-10%, but a test early this year came back at 0.2, and a test this week at 0.1 (and BPH symptoms are much reduced or absent ). I'm still trying to get an appointment with my urologist. My NP appears to think that it is due to low T levels over the last several years, but if so the score would surely have dropped sooner. The only thing I can think of that might have done it is PM, of which I am taking a fairly high dose (3.75gm/day, three weeks out of four.

Has anyone else noted anything similar. PM is certainly supposed to be prostate friendly.

[MonikaT]

I don't remember what my most recent PSA level was, but it was toward the lower end of "normal." I haven't had a test since starting PM, but I do/did have symptoms of BPH before and after beginning PM. I take 2 grams a day. For a month, I took 3 grams a day a couple months ago. PM doesn't seem to affect my BPH symptoms. I recently added SN, and it almost instantly reduced my BPH symptoms. I went from getting up 5 times a night to getting up typically only twice a night. I probably won't be getting another PSA until after the new year since my insurance only pays for one a year.

[AnnieBL]

Did you mean to refer to SP? Otherwise what is SN? I never found that SP did anything for me, but that was probably because various BP medications I was then but am no longer taking (including high dose beta-blockers, digoxin and spiro), had already apparently permanently suppressed my T production, well before my PSA dropped like a stone: that only happened after I was on PM. I had changed from terazosin to tamsulosin as an alpha blocker when dropping the digoxin but I don't think that either is supposed to have much influence on PSA (unlike finasteride or dutasteride which can mask high PSA counts but which I have never taken). A supposed virtue of SP is that it does not influence PSA counts.

[Karren]

I track my psa religiously since my father died of prostate cancer.... and its been going up over the years.... so my question is pm artificially lowering it or does it slow cancer growth.... the Prostate Symptomatic Antigen is a marker when prostate cancer could be happening..... id rather know if its really going on that being surprised down the road .......

[AnnieBL]

My understanding is that if you have BPH you will likely have a PSA score, but it should not exceed one tenth of your age, and should not increase by more than 15% per annum. My own impression is that masking effects would only reduce the score, not effectively eliminate it, but who knows? I'm having difficulty getting an appointment with my urologist to discuss this, and my bladder stone problems.

[Karren]

I have mine test results stored in some online tracking score and look at the trend.... my dads was like 1 and went to 30000 in a year.... I get mine checked every 6 months by my endo ...

[AnnieBL]

This link may be useful:

http://www.mayomedicallaboratories.com/t...tive/81944

When I had higher readings, my free/total PSA ratio was good. I understand however that depending on where in the prostate a cancer begins, it can sometimes be well established before anything shows up in a PSA test. Hardly reassuring as to the value of the test and possibly what happened to your father.

[MonikaT]

When I said SN, I meant stinging nettle root which I take 250 mg three times a day. I find SP totally useless.

PSA is only one test for prostate cancer, and doctors rely on it far too much. If prostate cancer is a concern, then a digital exam is also necessary. I have heard doctors on TV say that neither test alone is a complete method of screening, and either test catches only about half of prostate cancers, but by getting both tests, that probably goes up to more like 80-90%.

A very low PSA, if accompanied by low T, can actually "hide" an existing prostate cancer if the doctor relies solely on PSA since there is a relationship between T level and PSA level. This is why there is still this commonly-held misbelief among the medical profession that testosterone replacement therapy "causes" prostate cancer when what is really happening is that an existing cancer is being revealed by the return to a more normal T level. I've had medical professionals tell me that if a man lives long enough, he will develop prostate cancer, but most of the time, depending on his age, it grows so slowly that old age or some other ailment will get him before the cancer does. Of course, the cancer grows more quickly in a younger male.

[Karren]

I was thinking that since this runs in my family that I should be proactive and just have everything down there removed.... Angelina Jolie set the precedent .... My wifes not to keen on the idea... lol

[AnnieBL]

Karren- I'm certainly not qualified to give you any advice on that,but I think you need to do some more homework and get advice from people who really know what they are talking about. The massive funding that goes into breast cancer research means that the state of knowledge and the treatment and surgical techniques are I think much more sophisticated than is the case with prostate cancer. AJ was faced with a quantified horrendous odds-on probability of developing breast cancer, and had available nipple saving and sensation saving surgeries which probably left her far better of than the average person who has had breast enhancement surgery. On the other hand I am not aware of any DNA markers etc. which enable accurate assessment of prostate cancer risk, and the available surgeries seem to carry sufficiently high risk of adverse outcomes, such as impotence and incontinence, that it might be difficult to obtain prophylactic surgery. I know that at least a proportion of prostate cancers are stalled at least for a significant period by an androgen blockade (ie chemical or physical castration) and/or administration of estrogen, and maybe the phytoestrogens in PM are capable of fulfilling this function. That does entail a loss of male function, but our own experience is that it has been far less disastrous to our physical relationship than I ever would have expected and indeed things have been far better for us since I gave up what had become usually unsuccessful and frustrating efforts to reach a normal male climax.

I would have thought that you should discover your free to total PSA ratio if you do not already have that information, and it might be worthwhile paying for extra PSA tests - but I have no idea how much they cost. If the ratio is poor I expect you could get a biopsy. Yes, I know that biopsies too can give false negatives. I can get a PSA and other tests as often as I can persuade someone authorised to order one that it is necessary or desirable - but on the other hand I have to pay directly for pharmaceuticals unless administered in hospital, and it can take for ever and a day to get to see a specialist.

MonikaT- Yes I have had a number of digital exams - two within the last three months, but I gather they show nothing more than some enlargement.

I have a powerful indication that my BPH is much improved. A few weeks ago I passed a massive bladder stone 14 x 10 x 7mm. I felt it shoot rapidly through my prostate and urethra and jam at the exit from which I managed to extract it. It has now disappeared somewhere into the lab system at the hospital and the report isn't back yet.