mamasbabygirl Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I thought that studies have shown that having both a CT and PET scan would yield more accurate results as far as cancer goes. My mom has been putting herself through all of this treatment (radiation and chemo) and the oncologist told her today that she will have a CT scan in 3 weeks. When I asked about the PET scan, she said he said no because they are too inaccurate. Shouldn't they be using both to be the most accurate? Is he just trying to save costs? What are your Drs. saying? Thanks, Lori Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I read a wihle ago that PET scans are good at staging, but not good at determining the response to treatment. Maybe this is what the Dr is assuming or it is an insurance issue. However, I just found a link (immediately below) that states PET scans are better and determining response to treatment. If someone has the experience to use a PET scan to determine response it seems from the one article below that a PET scan would be better than just a CT scan http://www.jco.org/cgi/reprint/21/7/1285.pdf http://www.mountlebanonhospital.com/pet/pet_11.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/hel ... 956539.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 I read a wihle ago that PET scans are good at staging, but not good at determining the response to treatment. Maybe this is what the Dr is assuming or it is an insurance issue. However, I just found a link (immediately below) that states PET scans are better and determining response to treatment. If someone has the experience to use a PET scan to determine response it seems from the one article below that a PET scan would be better than just a CT scan http://www.jco.org/cgi/reprint/21/7/1285.pdf http://www.mountlebanonhospital.com/pet/pet_11.htm http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/hel ... 956539.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Lori, I've never had a PET scan. Follow up for me is either an X-ray or a CT scan. My oncologist's view is that the PET scan is expensive and he'll use it if he wants a closer look (like the bone scan), but other than that, he'll stick with what we've been doing... Becky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Wood Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Lucie's onc has followed her progress with x-ray, CT and PET scans. The PET scans are used less frequently. PET scans are not fool-proof as other things can highlight in them ,such as healing bones. I am glad her onc uses all the tools to track her. Don Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhutch1366 Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 I have never had a pet scan. I get MRIs extensively every year, and CT scans every six months. I asked him about PET and he told me that the PET is useless for follow up if one was not done originally. Nothing to compare the "after" picture to! Made sense to me. XOXOXOX Prayers always, MaryAnn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hebbie Posted August 12, 2004 Share Posted August 12, 2004 When I completed radiation/chemo treatment, they waited just over a month and then did a CT and a PET. The reason for waiting was to let the radiation damage ease a little or all sorts of stuff would be showing on the scans! The reason behind my oncologist's decision to do the PET (considering that I had not had one before) was to use as a "baseline" going forward to compare any needed PET scans to in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.