Mombu 2009-04-04 03:33:53
i am expecting to be on an antibiotic prior to testing my psa. i am
scheduled to have a basel cell cancer removed from the bridge of my
nose around the time my psa is to be tested. the doctor wants me to be
on an antibiotic for 6 days. they tentively scheduled me for surgery
shortly after the results of the psa. the dermatologist does not want
me to wait too long before i have the basel since it is growing. is
there a risk that the antibiotic could cause the psa to rise or even
activate the prostate cancer due to it’s effect on my immunity?
Leonard evens 2009-04-04 03:33:56
Note that I am not a physician, so take what I say with a grain of
salt. If you want an expert opinion, ask your doctor.
I suppose anything is possible, but I don’t see any way using an
antibiotic could affect your prostate cancer one way or another. It
could possibly affect the results of a PSA test. The reason is that
part of your PSA elevation could be due to a low level infection in your
prostate. As a result, using an antibiotic might lower your PSA by
curing the infection.
By the way, I believe it is spelled ‘basal’.
Steve jordan 2009-04-04 03:33:59
The antibiotic might be Cipro, intended to deal with any infection in
the prostate. Such an infection can cause an increase in PSA. Anything
that stresses the gland can cause such an increase, and what is wanted
is a reading of the PSA that is expressed by the normal and the abnormal
(if any) prostate cells, not from stressors.
So my amateur opinion is that the answer is “no.”
But such questions should be asked of the medics, not of lay people on
Mombu 2009-04-04 03:34:02
one reason i am asking is that i understand that antibiotics can lower
immunity and prostate cancer likes to attack during lower immunity.
Not even 2009-04-06 00:08:22
antibiotics boost immune systems.
antibiotics are prescribed to lower psa when an infection is thought to
be the reason for the increase in psa.
in any case, the effect will be temporary.
I.p. freely 2009-04-06 00:08:26
I suspect Steve may agree that the “not” should be changed to “and”. The
more I see in these forums, the less confident I become in what our
doctors are — and are not — telling us. As one example among scores,
if I had “asked the internet”, I’d have gotten a biopsy 2-3 years
sooner, may have avoided SVI, could JUST POSSIBLY have pre-empted my
Gleason 4 samples, and may be far less likely now to die of this disease.
Pc55 2009-04-06 00:08:34
Absolutely correct! I had a small nodule & a negative biopsy when my
PSA was only 0.8. Six months later, the reading was 1.3. My urologist
said “let’s wait another 6 months.” So I ultimately end up with
Gleason 4+3 & treatment failure. And yet the concept of the rate of
change being more important than the actual PSA had been kicking around
for a while.
The collective wisdom of this forum might have made a 20 year survival
difference, but I’m not really complaining. Although many of us will
be dead before today’s research ends up in the treatment protocols, we
are lucky to be diseased in an age where there is a huge amount of
research – all available on the internet. It’s up to us to keep
abreast of it – our doctors don’t have the time.
And while I’m ranting, why is the profession so in thrall to
Huggins&Hodges, who got their Nobel 5 years before I was born?
Castration isn’t much more effective today than it was 60 years ago.