Hi, everyone! Because most, if not all, of the research out there focuses on cigarettes, I wondered if anyone knew of any clear evidence linking pipe smoking with elevated PSA. Thanks so much!
Connections Between Pipe Tobacco and Elevated PSA
- Thread starter SteveP
- Start date
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Elevated PSA should be talked about between you and your doctor. He will give you the information. All we are are grumpy old men.
It's all about genes. It's either going to happen or it isn't.
Wrong. Your environment often over-rides genetics. They are recipes that can be chosen or not chosen due to environmental inputs.
Dunno, but I'm still in awe at the mechanism which clamps the urethra shut - it's like the three prongs of a drill chuck and operates in the same manner. That's cystoscopies for ya, a journey into the Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau.
In answer to the OP I would imagine that pipe smoking would enhance or elevate the focus during a Provisional Skills Assessment (PSA), this would be a good thing I think.
Most doctors will always tell you to not use tobacco....period.
If you get a good one, they will shoot you straight.
My doctor loves booze, cigars, and guns.....and THATS why hes my doctor.
He's an everything in moderation kinda guy. Except sugar.....he really hates sugar.
If you get a good one, they will shoot you straight.
My doctor loves booze, cigars, and guns.....and THATS why hes my doctor.
He's an everything in moderation kinda guy. Except sugar.....he really hates sugar.
Kind of proves my point. The genes' reaction to environmental elements determine whether or not it happens. Some smoke for years never developing cancer while some avoid carcinogens and get it.
Shit happens
If smoking causes you to lie awake in bed worrying, then don't !
And just in case it has escaped you, this ain't a medical forum
I can't tell if this is parody or modern times.
I think it depends on how old you are ... to most here its sarcasm; to 'damn kids nowadays' its probably closer to reality.
Oh my god please contact urologist and do not ask medical advice from here.
Following on from my earlier comment, I have to say that getting cameras shoved in various orifices has resulted in my considering, quite seriously, the notion of intelligent design of our systems.
I was astonished by the prostate drill chuck chiefly because it had three components, besides brilliant design to solve routing and bladder protection in this hydraulic system. You don't expect to find three anything, frankly. But a colonoscopy did it again - the transverse colon, where the large bowel transits from right side to left, is triangular in cross-section. Some medics call it the "Toblerone". It will only bend in three directions, unlike round tube which bends in any. Given its location and the dynamic pressures above and beneath, isn't this a most elegant engineering solution to blockage prevention? And it has to have developed "all-of-a-piece"; by the time evolution could work, our prototype would be long gone and the line terminated by chronic blockage.
Stuff to think about.
I was astonished by the prostate drill chuck chiefly because it had three components, besides brilliant design to solve routing and bladder protection in this hydraulic system. You don't expect to find three anything, frankly. But a colonoscopy did it again - the transverse colon, where the large bowel transits from right side to left, is triangular in cross-section. Some medics call it the "Toblerone". It will only bend in three directions, unlike round tube which bends in any. Given its location and the dynamic pressures above and beneath, isn't this a most elegant engineering solution to blockage prevention? And it has to have developed "all-of-a-piece"; by the time evolution could work, our prototype would be long gone and the line terminated by chronic blockage.
Stuff to think about.
So there is no information that anyone has about the OP's question, but there are plenty of snarky comments to be made while we wait to see if someone actually might have a direct reply to the above question. SNAFU.
I imagine everyone just has the same access to the quick an dirty search on the topic. My suggestion would be to not focus on "Pipe smoking" or "cigarettes" but instead Nicotine's impact on PSA levels.
That quick and dirty search would seem to indicate not much direct correlation depending on the study. Some studies say yes, others say no and so my own personal take would be....probably not much beyond genetics predisposition.
I find if you take "cigarettes" out of the focus, you can find some reasonable information that's not tarred with preconceived "cigarette bad" focus when trying to look at a causal relationship of something. Studies are biased as anything else.
That quick and dirty search would seem to indicate not much direct correlation depending on the study. Some studies say yes, others say no and so my own personal take would be....probably not much beyond genetics predisposition.
I find if you take "cigarettes" out of the focus, you can find some reasonable information that's not tarred with preconceived "cigarette bad" focus when trying to look at a causal relationship of something. Studies are biased as anything else.
If prostate cancer is what you're interested in, based on this study there is no significantly increased risk. This is one meta study "Association between Cigar or Pipe Smoking and Cancer Risk in Men: A Pooled Analysis of Five Cohort Studies" of five fairly large cohorts [LINK].
Other studies suggest that PSA trends toward increasing, albeit not significantly, in cigarette smokers versus non-smokers; but there appears to be a significant increase in PSA in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and who smoke cigarettes versus non-smokers. For prostate cancer in particular, I would guess the risk is particularly low compared to cigarette smoking.
"Overall, PSA sensitivity ranges from 9% to 33%, depending on age and the PSA cut-off values, indicating that up to 91% of individuals with elevated serum PSA levels do not have prostate cancer. In clinical practice, the actual risk of prostate cancer in men with an elevated PSA is roughly 30%." [LINK]
In the end, I would guess that the answers and the risks are something you ought to discuss with your healthcare provider, in careful consideration of your baseline PSA levels and health history, and, importantly, any relevant diagnoses you may have had.
Other studies suggest that PSA trends toward increasing, albeit not significantly, in cigarette smokers versus non-smokers; but there appears to be a significant increase in PSA in patients diagnosed with prostate cancer and who smoke cigarettes versus non-smokers. For prostate cancer in particular, I would guess the risk is particularly low compared to cigarette smoking.
"Overall, PSA sensitivity ranges from 9% to 33%, depending on age and the PSA cut-off values, indicating that up to 91% of individuals with elevated serum PSA levels do not have prostate cancer. In clinical practice, the actual risk of prostate cancer in men with an elevated PSA is roughly 30%." [LINK]
In the end, I would guess that the answers and the risks are something you ought to discuss with your healthcare provider, in careful consideration of your baseline PSA levels and health history, and, importantly, any relevant diagnoses you may have had.
- Status