CT scan

jkkb129

How soon after completing treatment did you have your first CT scan?  I finished treatment Oct 27 and have a scan scheduled on the 25th.  Does that sound right?

 

 

Jackie

AZANNIE

Scan

I had my post treatment PET scan 8 weeks after treatment and that might have been too soon. It showed no evidence of disease. Congrats on completing treatment!

Ann

 

horsepad

I had a CT scan one month

I had a CT scan one month after and I showed evidence of cancer still in my lympth nodes and liver.  Original tumor gone.  I had 4 oncologists at 2 different medical facilities and they disagreed on when the CT should be done.  2 felt in one month, the other 2 felt CT shouldn't be done for 3 months because chemo and radiation still working.  I had another ct in 3 months and NED!!!!

mp327

Post-treatment scan

My medical oncologist ordered my first post-treatment PET scan to be done approximately 5 weeks after my last rad treatment.  My rad onc did not agree because he felt it was too soon and would show activity still present because of residual radiation.  However, my med onc was the leading doctor in my care, so I had the scan as he wanted.  Sure enough, my rad onc was right--there was still activity.  Of course, it freaked me out.  Later scans showed my tumor to be gone.  Due to the anxiety this caused me, I would highly recommend talking to your doctor and asking if you can wait 3 months.  It sounds a bit soon to me for you to be having a scan so soon.  

I wish you all the very best, Jackie, and I hope you are doing well in your recovery.  When you do have that scan, may you get all good news!  Take care. 

Martha

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch

Deep breath.

I certainly understand the desire to know RIGHT AWAY if the treatment has worked, but if a scan is done too soon, as others have said, it could cloud the issue rather than illuminate, lead to unnecessary biopsies, and provoke a whole lotta fear. Unless there's a compelling reason to proceed, talk to your radiation oncologist about being patient and intervening on your behalf with the oncologist, if need be.

If there's no compelling reason, be cautious about exposing yourself to a wasted scan and the unnecessary radiation exposure. Your lifetime exposure is determined by your body size, age when exposed, the amount of background radiation naturally occurring in your environment (example: radon gas), trips through unregulated equipment like airport scanners, the diagnostic tests you've had done, and the therapuetic treatments you've received. You may not accumulate all that much exposure from diagnostic tests alone, but add in those therapuetic doses we all suffer from and it adds up. In my opinion, don't waste an exposure.

Besides, at three months you will feel a whole lot better physically than you do now and better able to drink the solution, feel stronger, drive yourself, etc.

See this section "What kind of treatment follow-up should I expect?" - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=anal-cancer-therapy

Printable "Medical Imagng History" Card - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/ImageWisely/7678_Medical Imaging History.pdf

Chart that compares diagnostic radiation exposures (but not therapuetic exposures) to equivalent background radiation exposures - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch said:

Deep breath.

I certainly understand the desire to know RIGHT AWAY if the treatment has worked, but if a scan is done too soon, as others have said, it could cloud the issue rather than illuminate, lead to unnecessary biopsies, and provoke a whole lotta fear. Unless there's a compelling reason to proceed, talk to your radiation oncologist about being patient and intervening on your behalf with the oncologist, if need be.

If there's no compelling reason, be cautious about exposing yourself to a wasted scan and the unnecessary radiation exposure. Your lifetime exposure is determined by your body size, age when exposed, the amount of background radiation naturally occurring in your environment (example: radon gas), trips through unregulated equipment like airport scanners, the diagnostic tests you've had done, and the therapuetic treatments you've received. You may not accumulate all that much exposure from diagnostic tests alone, but add in those therapuetic doses we all suffer from and it adds up. In my opinion, don't waste an exposure.

Besides, at three months you will feel a whole lot better physically than you do now and better able to drink the solution, feel stronger, drive yourself, etc.

See this section "What kind of treatment follow-up should I expect?" - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=anal-cancer-therapy

Printable "Medical Imagng History" Card - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/ImageWisely/7678_Medical Imaging History.pdf

Chart that compares diagnostic radiation exposures (but not therapuetic exposures) to equivalent background radiation exposures - http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/?pg=sfty_xray

Mea culpa.

I apologize for misinformation in my above post.

I read a site not too long ago that claims that airport scanners are unregulated, subjecting passengers to widely varying levels of exposure. However, this seems not to be so true.

I found this page on the Radiolgy Info site that explains the low risk of exposure: http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty-airport-scanners The American College of Radiologists and the Radiological Society of North America are professional organizations, not industry organizations. This page on the American Cancer Society site quotes the ACR on scanner safety, thereby tacitly endorsing their statements: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/prominent-us-radiology-association-says-airport-body-scanners-safe-update

I should not have taken one person's personal opinion at such face value.

GoodDog2

First post treatment CT

3 months. Radiation is still at work for a while after treatment.

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch said:

Mea culpa.

I apologize for misinformation in my above post.

I read a site not too long ago that claims that airport scanners are unregulated, subjecting passengers to widely varying levels of exposure. However, this seems not to be so true.

I found this page on the Radiolgy Info site that explains the low risk of exposure: http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty-airport-scanners The American College of Radiologists and the Radiological Society of North America are professional organizations, not industry organizations. This page on the American Cancer Society site quotes the ACR on scanner safety, thereby tacitly endorsing their statements: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/prominent-us-radiology-association-says-airport-body-scanners-safe-update

I should not have taken one person's personal opinion at such face value.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formulates the standard guidlines for cancer treatment that many providers in the world follow. You can register for free at their website so you can access the "Anal Carcinoma" guidleine. See page Anal-3 for their follow-up guideline tree. You could give your doctor a copy of the guidleines for review. http://www.nccn.org/

jkkb129

CT Scan

Thank you to everyone that responed.  Right now I am waiting on a new date as my doctor isn't in the office on the new date they gave me.  I rescheduled my CT until after Thanksgiving.  Now I am waiting on the scheduler to call me back because my PET is scheduled only 4 weeks from the CT.  I ask if the CT could be canceled and just do the PET,  She  checking to see if the doctors will agree to that.

jackie

lp1964

jkkb129 said:

CT Scan

Thank you to everyone that responed.  Right now I am waiting on a new date as my doctor isn't in the office on the new date they gave me.  I rescheduled my CT until after Thanksgiving.  Now I am waiting on the scheduler to call me back because my PET is scheduled only 4 weeks from the CT.  I ask if the CT could be canceled and just do the PET,  She  checking to see if the doctors will agree to that.

jackie

Dear Jackie,

Don't forget that a PET scan is basically a CT scan with radiactive sugar IV and they are rarelly so close together.

Godd luck,

Laz 

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch

lp1964 said:

Dear Jackie,

Don't forget that a PET scan is basically a CT scan with radiactive sugar IV and they are rarelly so close together.

Godd luck,

Laz 

My 1 experience with PET scan.......

When I had my PET scan at the beginning, the person who interpreted the films pointed out the possibility of inguinal nodes being involved, but stated that the PET scan didn't have the sensitivity to determine it for sure. They recommended that further investigation was needed. I don't know if this applies across the board for all PET scans or that this hospital had less sensitive equipment.

[PS: I had no further investigation of those nodes, but the radiation oncologist told me that he treated me as though they were effected and as though I had stage III-b when he and the radiation team planned where they would zap me. I never did get an explanation from the oncologist why she told me I was stage II instead of at least III-a and possibly III-b. There's a big difference in the 5 year life expectancy rates and I had the right to know!]

mxperry220

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch said:

My 1 experience with PET scan.......

When I had my PET scan at the beginning, the person who interpreted the films pointed out the possibility of inguinal nodes being involved, but stated that the PET scan didn't have the sensitivity to determine it for sure. They recommended that further investigation was needed. I don't know if this applies across the board for all PET scans or that this hospital had less sensitive equipment.

[PS: I had no further investigation of those nodes, but the radiation oncologist told me that he treated me as though they were effected and as though I had stage III-b when he and the radiation team planned where they would zap me. I never did get an explanation from the oncologist why she told me I was stage II instead of at least III-a and possibly III-b. There's a big difference in the 5 year life expectancy rates and I had the right to know!]

Same Here

I was diagnosed Stage 2 in 2008.  They did see an enlarged lymph node but the chemo doctor said that could be enlarged due to the fact of all the testing I was having.  My radiation oncologist said he would treat the enlarged lymph node the same as the anal cancer tumor to err on the side of caution.  I am now 5  years 10 months cancer free.

Mike

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch

mxperry220 said:

Same Here

I was diagnosed Stage 2 in 2008.  They did see an enlarged lymph node but the chemo doctor said that could be enlarged due to the fact of all the testing I was having.  My radiation oncologist said he would treat the enlarged lymph node the same as the anal cancer tumor to err on the side of caution.  I am now 5  years 10 months cancer free.

Mike

Yes!

Hooray for us and for having radiation oncologists that covered our back(side)s!

jcruz

Ouch_Ouch_Ouch said:

My 1 experience with PET scan.......

When I had my PET scan at the beginning, the person who interpreted the films pointed out the possibility of inguinal nodes being involved, but stated that the PET scan didn't have the sensitivity to determine it for sure. They recommended that further investigation was needed. I don't know if this applies across the board for all PET scans or that this hospital had less sensitive equipment.

[PS: I had no further investigation of those nodes, but the radiation oncologist told me that he treated me as though they were effected and as though I had stage III-b when he and the radiation team planned where they would zap me. I never did get an explanation from the oncologist why she told me I was stage II instead of at least III-a and possibly III-b. There's a big difference in the 5 year life expectancy rates and I had the right to know!]

scans and staging

I was told that my cancer could not be staged accurately because of complications.  I had Bartholin's cysts and a grand infection at the same time I was initially being scanned.  My inguinal nodes may have been involved or they were a sign as my surgeon suggested of a strong lymphatic response to the infection.  I also had cells on my vulva and at first they weren't sure if it was all one tumor or a second primary tumor.  I was told the treatment would be the same no matter what stage the cancer was but  I did receive an extra 5 days of radiation.

I asked my med. oncologist last year about what stage it was or might have been and he was reluctant at first to say but I pressed and his  answer was 3a, 3b or 4.  They really weren't sure.  And earlier this month my rad. onc. was impressing upon me the importance of having reached 2 years in remission, then said "that really was one of the bigger tumors" (size of a lime) in a way that made me realize how concerned she had been and also that she had done an amazing job on my treatment.

I would guess for myself that I had been stage 3b and after worrying myself over survival rates I forced myself to stop looking at websites and just live.  That's probably easier done at a year or more after treatment.  I worried over everything my first full year.

Janet

qv62

jkkb129

I had an MRI 3 months post radiation and will have pet scans 6 months after that, anoscopy was done about 4 1/2 months post radiation