Jun 12, 2010 - 7:08 pm
As a number in our family are dealing with this issue, or have of recent, I would like to have a thread which only addresses this issue. For me, it was 2 1/2-months, and the results were "something might have shown" under my tongue. My ENT was so concerned about it that he scheduled my next PS/CT for 8-months later! Yeah, and that PS/CT came back entirely "clean." SO:
THIS BRINGS-UP THE ISSUE OF WHEN THE FIRST PS/CT SHOULD BE DONE. Hondo and I are of the opinion that 3-months is too early, and that 6-months is more appropriate. One entry stated that they were told there's was done so early- "to establish a baseline," by which following tests could be compared. Who is to say you will get your next PS/CT done at the same place? I got a choice of 4-5 places I could have my next done in the Quad Cities. Hey, Folks, we're talking about a $4,000-plus test that shoots radioactive isotopes into you, and the med community is gonna ho-hum it like it's just business-as-usual?! Were I to be able to do it all over again- I woulda refused the 2 1/2-month scenario, and told my Drs. that I'd be waiting for 6-months to pass. 3-months is just too danged early for anything that can be taken seriously to show- and all 3-months (like mine) are frought with false-positives and false alarms. My ENT said without any hesitation that he wasn't concerned with my first PS/CT results.
HAS ANYONE HAD A 3-MONTH THAT SHOWED ANYTHING THAT REALLY TURNED-OUT TO BE C? If so, please let us know.
And, as I have stated several times, if some real C showed after only 3-months, after the grueling treatment we all bear testimony to; yeah, it is my opinion that anyone with such would be justified in turning into Clint Eastwood then and there, and asking the Dr.- "How the H--- did you miss that, Doc? Uh...you better have a real good answer to that, Doc."