I was referred to Dr. Chawla because of a mildly elevated PSA - 4.86. I was given a bladder ultrasound which was normal. I was given no other tests; not a DRE nor an estimate of the prostrate volume via ultrasound (at least it wasn't discussed with me). It was recommended that I have a prostrate biopsy. I was given the odds that Cancer would be found given that my PSA was in the range of 4 to 10. The fact that my PSA was in the low end of the range was not taken into consideration. Also, I was not given the odds of Cancer being found in people with a PSA lower than 4 (which is very significant) so that I had a point of reference.
I would be leaving the area in a couple of weeks, and Dr. Chawla let me know before agreeing to give me the biopsy that he wanted to be the one to provide treatment if anything was found during the procedure. His schedule was very full, but after I agreed to the arrangement, he scheduled the biopsy.
Luckily, before seeing Dr. Chawla I had read about how the PSA test can be effected by certain recent circumstances, not to mention that the PSA is expected to be higher as folks get older.
Armed with this information, I requested a second PSA test. Sure enough the result for this test was 3.05.
When I saw the result, I canceled the biopsy, which is an invasive procedure that carries the following risks: "Pain or discomfort. Some men will feel pain or discomfort ... for a few days or weeks afterwards. ... Short-term bleeding. ... Infection. ... Acute urine retention. ... Sexual problems." I had not been told of these risks, by the way.
The only further communication I got was a message confirming my new PSA (the results of which I had already received), and asking me if I wanted to cancel the test (which I already had done). There was no phone call to discuss how the new results changed the picture, what he recommended, etc.
I now see, by the way, that there are studies that break down the odds of cancer based on PSA level in finer detail; the result of the DRE; and age. I'm sure there must be studies that use volume calculated per ultrasound as well, but I have not sought this out.
I am not given to writing negative reviews, and thought long and hard before giving this review; but I felt it would be irresponsible for me not to in this case, where I felt that I was ill-informed, felt that I was led into what turns out to appear to be an inadvisable procedure without due thoughtfulness, and felt that there was much more emphasis placed on the prospect of performing procedures than on my well-being.