saje

Thank you buzzy. I also hope I get some input on this. I think it was quite thoughtless of your GP & radiologist to say that your 1 mm increase in size wasn't a huge issue. Perhaps they were just trying to alleviate your fears for now, but to respond to you so glibly was uncalled for. Why are they following up by just doing another chest x-ray rather than a CT scan? I think you might want to consider making an appointmwnt to see an oncologist who would order a CT & then a PET scan if need be. I will also pray that your nodules will be smaller. I am baffled about my size discrepancy. How can one person say I have a 1.1 mm nodule, then the next person tell me it's 11 mm, & then another person look at that report & say it was originally 8.7 mm. Makes me wonder whose report that third party was looking at! And then to tell me that the edges are spiculated, it showed up hot on the PET scan, & then to glibly add that it's not reachable & nothing can be done so go back home ... I am quite outraged. I have a followup appointment with the oncologist next week which I hope they aren't thinking of canceling, & I will insist on an explanation ... but I am hoping that someone here can perhaps be of help before then.

In October I presented to the local ER with chest pain. A chest x-ray revealed a 1.1 mm spot on my right lung. I was told to schedule a CT scan within the week. I had been seeing a hematologist/oncologist once a year for a non-cancer related issue. The multitude of awards hanging on his walls state that he is one if the top oncologists in the country. I called his office & after obtaining & reviewing the x-ray he scheduled me for a CT scan & then a PET scan. He informed me that these scans confirmed an 11 mm nodule in my right lung. He stated that although the PET scan did not "light up," the nodule was spiculated & therefore caused him concern. He told me that I had two options to choose from. I could wait three months & have another scan, or I could have a needle biopsy. He said he would be comfortable with either choice. I thought it over & opted for the biopsy which was scheduled this morning at the hospital where he is on staff. The intake nurse explained that the procedure would take about an hour & a half & then I'd be in recovery for two hours unless my lung deflated at which point they'd assign me a room & keep me overnight. A little after 8:00 the radiation tech came to get me. He took me to a room with a CT machine & explained they'd do a CT to precisely locate the tumor & to see if there had been any changes since my prior scans. The biopsy surgeon & his assistant were there to assess the scan prior to the biopsy. The tech asked if I was familiar with the risks of the procedure. I told him that the oncologist had explained that there was a 1 in 10 chance of my lung deflating. He said "it's not quite that simple" & went on to explain that there's always a risk on infection although that is very rare, but the lung deflating really depended on where the nodule was located. Here's how I understand it. Your lungs are apparently made up of lobes. The left lung has two, the right lung has three These lobes are separated by fissures. If the nodule is located in a lobe, the chance of the lung deflating is doubtful or nonexistent, but if the nodule is on/in/under/close to a fissure, the lung deflating is pretty much a sure thing ... & if the lung deflates, they won't be able to do a biopsy. The tech left me lying on the bed of the CT machine in case he needed to repeat the scan. After about ten minutes, I was informed that my nodule is either on, in, under, or close to a fissure (I forget which), there was no way to safely access it, & the biopsy was being canceled. I was told a report was being sent to my oncologist & he would probably have me follow up with another CT in 3-6 months. The tech said I should get a call from the oncologist's office within a week. What is really strange is that he said the nodule has actually gotten smaller ... it was originally 8.7 mm but now it's 7.5 mm. I said "but I was told in November that it measured 11 mm" & the response was "the person measuring it at that time probably measured it differently." ??? Isn't there be a standard in the medical field that everyone uses for measuring nodules??? And where did this "original measurement" of 8.7 mm come from? The oncologist saw the report & x-ray taken in October. He ordered a CT & then a PET scan in November & confirmed an 11 mm nodule. What in the world??? The biopsy surgeon did say the nodule was "still spiculated" & added that it showed up "hot" on the PET scan. I am totally bewildered!!! I had expected some answers & now I have no idea what's going on : ( I am 63 years old & have never smoked nor have I hung around with people who smoked. I did grow up with a mother who was a heavy smoker for 70+ years. She died from small cell lung cancer. Any input regarding this puzzling situation would be greatly appreciated. Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android