Flo Bones Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 We meet with the Onc on Friday to discuss the results of the CT-Scan taken last week. The scan was compared to that of Feb 7 (significant shrinkage). The CT Scan indicates the paratracheal mass continues to be STABLE in size. There is NO pleural or pericardial effusion. We are thankful!!!!! Now this is where confusion creeps in. In Feb, Terry took both CT Scan and Pet Scan. The PET Scan indicated FDG uptake in enlarged right adrenal mass suggestive of hypermetabolic neoplastic disease most likely metastasis. However, nothing showed up abnormal on the CT Scan regarding his adrenal gland. The CT Scan he took last week revealed there is NO EVIDENCE of metastatic disease to the liver. The spleen, adrenal glands, pancreas are NORMAL. Conclusion: Stable CT of the chest and normal abdominal CT. No evidence of metastatic disease below the diaphragm. My questions is: In your opinion, which scan is more accurate. The Onc seems to think the CT Scan is more reliable. He stated the Pet Scan sometimes has false readings. Terry will be starting a more aggressive treatment on Thursday (I think it will be Carbo/Taxol). The Onc stated after three doses, we have an option to add Avastin to the treatment plan. I don’t know much about Avastin. I’ve researched Tarceva because it appears that most of you guys are on Tarceva. But the Onc said that Tarceva would not benefit Terry. Overall, we are thanking God for a good report. I would appreciate any FEEDBACK on Avastin and the accuracy of CT Scan vs PET Scan. How can an uptake show up on one scan and not the other? As always, thank you for your continuous support and prayers. Flo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.