Latest Update on Lung Spots

JanJan63

I went to see the doctor who deals with the radiation if the spots on my lungs are mets and not just scars. I met with a team of three doctors including the one I was booked to see. They figure there's about a 60 to 70 percent chance the spots are cancer. So the next step is a PET scan to see if anything lights up. If they do then I'll get the radiation within a couple of days. My latest CEA result from Dec 18 is .8 which is down from 1. Not by much but I'm thrilled. I'm wondering if anybody has experience in this or has any thoughts about my decision to go ahead with the radiation. He said if they turn out to be mets I could keep getting checked and see if they start to grow and then go ahead with the radiation. That would be my other option. He said they will not put any new cancer cells in my body but the cancer that was there last year has already done that so if I get any new mets they're from the original cancer, not the spots in the lungs. 

Jan

beaumontdave

I have no experience with

I have no experience with this, is this a pinpoint radiation that just kills the spots? How much radiation have you had, and do they refer to maximum lifetime exposure levels at all? My wife's brain tumor was surgically removed, the remaining tenacles were shrunken with a course of treatment, and then blasted with steriotactic radiosurgery. She was clear for years after that, but when it started returning they operated again, but couldn't radiate her again, because she'd hit the lifetime limit[ which they later said was a ten year limit]. Do they estimate the amount of radiation you might need, are the levels they use small enough to ensure future possible needs? If  that's not an issue, then why not zap them? I'm sure you'll hear from those who've had this treatment, so I'll defer to their wisdom. I hope it plays out well, my instinct is always the get after any cancer in there...................Dave

John23

Experience or thoughts…

I have thoughts…. I know that radiation radiates; that’s why they call it “radiation”. And I know that there is no such thing as “pin point” radiation therapy, because of “#1”, above. Cells around the beam, ahead of the beam, and behind the beam; all cells between entry and target (and well beyond) are radiated. And I know that radiation causes cancer since radiation damages cells. If your body (immune system/T cells) hasn’t been tossing damaged cells out, they are left behind to use the fermentation process to grow independently (called cancer).

I also know that “PET” scans use radioactive glucose to illuminate cancer tumors. The tumor is assumed to take up more glucose than “normal, healthy cells”. Unfortunately, individual cells in the process of repair will take up glucose faster than healthy cells also. And in many cases, a slow growing cancer cell; one growing slower than the surrounding healthy cells, will not “light up”, while a healthy cell that is growing will.

The PET was originally designed for surgical use. It was designed to attempt to provide a better outline of a tumor, with the intent to provide a surgeon with a better “map” for surgery. Using a PET for the discovery of individual cancer cells is ____ _______.  You fill in the blanks….

The patients fear of cancer and where it may have spread to drives the industry. I may be getting a PET shortly, but it would be used by my surgeon to better plan where to make the cut, not to find new treasure, or to convince me to be bombarded with radiation of chemicals. I’m fortunate that he believes as I do regarding all this. But he does this every day and has a University Education that has helped form his opinion.

I had “spots in lungs” in 2006. The only three left there have been there since 1995 and are granuloma.

I never did chemical or radiation therapy. I’m fortunate to not have suffered from all that as so many others have, but cancer takes it’s toll anyway; we lose and we lose and we lose more. How much we lose and how much we care about what we’ve lost, is an individual thing.

The bottom line? Don’t allow fear to cause you to do what your inner instinct; your intuition, might tell you not to accept or do. Trust thyself.

You’ll be OK.

          John

JanJan63

John23 said:

Experience or thoughts…

I have thoughts…. I know that radiation radiates; that’s why they call it “radiation”. And I know that there is no such thing as “pin point” radiation therapy, because of “#1”, above. Cells around the beam, ahead of the beam, and behind the beam; all cells between entry and target (and well beyond) are radiated. And I know that radiation causes cancer since radiation damages cells. If your body (immune system/T cells) hasn’t been tossing damaged cells out, they are left behind to use the fermentation process to grow independently (called cancer).

I also know that “PET” scans use radioactive glucose to illuminate cancer tumors. The tumor is assumed to take up more glucose than “normal, healthy cells”. Unfortunately, individual cells in the process of repair will take up glucose faster than healthy cells also. And in many cases, a slow growing cancer cell; one growing slower than the surrounding healthy cells, will not “light up”, while a healthy cell that is growing will.

The PET was originally designed for surgical use. It was designed to attempt to provide a better outline of a tumor, with the intent to provide a surgeon with a better “map” for surgery. Using a PET for the discovery of individual cancer cells is ____ _______.  You fill in the blanks….

The patients fear of cancer and where it may have spread to drives the industry. I may be getting a PET shortly, but it would be used by my surgeon to better plan where to make the cut, not to find new treasure, or to convince me to be bombarded with radiation of chemicals. I’m fortunate that he believes as I do regarding all this. But he does this every day and has a University Education that has helped form his opinion.

I had “spots in lungs” in 2006. The only three left there have been there since 1995 and are granuloma.

I never did chemical or radiation therapy. I’m fortunate to not have suffered from all that as so many others have, but cancer takes it’s toll anyway; we lose and we lose and we lose more. How much we lose and how much we care about what we’ve lost, is an individual thing.

The bottom line? Don’t allow fear to cause you to do what your inner instinct; your intuition, might tell you not to accept or do. Trust thyself.

You’ll be OK.

          John

You guys have really given me

You guys have really given me something to think about, thank you. He said that the PET will only show cancer spots if they consist of at least a million cells. I wonder if I should just wait and get more CT scans and see what happens, I really have to think about all of this. I had radiation two yeas ago for the colon cancer, which I'm now told was rectal, but it was the blast where they're not pinpointing it. It wasn't that bad but I was on chemo at the same time and had terrible fatigue and don't know which one cause it, or both. This time he figures only 4 sessions or blasts or whatever they call it. I'd like the PET scan in case it is just scarring so I don't have to have the radiation if it's not. I think it's interesting that the spots are in the lung that had the clot.

They say they're suspicious because they've shown up since the blood clot but I scar badly so it could still be scars. I would assume I scar as badly on the inside as the outside. I had a drain put through my butt cheek when I had the abcesses after the surgery and there's a big ball under my skin now where it was. About the size of a ping pong ball.  And where my port was is really ugly. I have two lovely scars there and I've caught people staring at it.

Jan

John23

JanJan63 said:

You guys have really given me

You guys have really given me something to think about, thank you. He said that the PET will only show cancer spots if they consist of at least a million cells. I wonder if I should just wait and get more CT scans and see what happens, I really have to think about all of this. I had radiation two yeas ago for the colon cancer, which I'm now told was rectal, but it was the blast where they're not pinpointing it. It wasn't that bad but I was on chemo at the same time and had terrible fatigue and don't know which one cause it, or both. This time he figures only 4 sessions or blasts or whatever they call it. I'd like the PET scan in case it is just scarring so I don't have to have the radiation if it's not. I think it's interesting that the spots are in the lung that had the clot.

They say they're suspicious because they've shown up since the blood clot but I scar badly so it could still be scars. I would assume I scar as badly on the inside as the outside. I had a drain put through my butt cheek when I had the abcesses after the surgery and there's a big ball under my skin now where it was. About the size of a ping pong ball.  And where my port was is really ugly. I have two lovely scars there and I've caught people staring at it.

Jan

No butts about it

At my age I stare at anything that resembles a butt, don’t take it personal.

It’s only my opinion, but I have refused radiation treatments and would continue to do so. I may approve the use of the PET (radioactive glucose), if this surgeon needs it for this specific surgery. I doubt he will insist, since they can not tell from pictures (scans) what they will finally know during open surgery.

Granuloma and scar tissue doesn’t disappear over a short time period, although it can over years. The cells inside a lung can be in a “revitalization” process; a healing process, and the uptake of glucose higher than healthier cells. They will “light up” with a PET. You can find that information at any of the “Journals” for physicians, and specifically at the Oncologist’s Journal websites.

I am not interested in being treated for hypothetical occurrences. Especially when the treatment is known to be a cause for “second cancers”. I can not understand why a specialist would suggest differently.

Ok…. Ready for an analogy?

I Had a urologist in the hospital tell me I did not require IV hydration and wrote an order to remove it.

It was not removed. I require IV hydration due to the “short bowel”; I will get dehydrated within a day without it. Ingested liquid goes right through. It’s a simple fact that any physician should know about a patient with a short bowel.

A surgeon informed me that my weight loss was due to cancer; that cancer will cause weight loss and it is one thing that signals cancer is present. No explanation why, in 2006, I weighed 180 lbs and had a fist-sized tumor that was said to have grown that large over a 7~8 year period. I’m 5’4”. 180 lbs was way overweight. I had been overweight for years… Maybe I would have been 800 lbs without the cancer, huh?

My well trusted Gastroenterologist told me a sigmoidoscopy was not necessary a year ago and at each visit since. Had she agreed to give one, I would not be faced with a possible total pelvic exenteration now.

Physicians are not always right - in spite of their degrees and in spite of their experience. If you have doubts and are feeling confused, get other professional opinions before you accept any opinion. You have to take charge; you have to have the courage to do so.

Don’t allow fear to be your driving force; listen to that “inner voice”, it was put there for a reason.

Think healthy; be well.

John

 

PhillieG

JanJan63 said:

You guys have really given me

You guys have really given me something to think about, thank you. He said that the PET will only show cancer spots if they consist of at least a million cells. I wonder if I should just wait and get more CT scans and see what happens, I really have to think about all of this. I had radiation two yeas ago for the colon cancer, which I'm now told was rectal, but it was the blast where they're not pinpointing it. It wasn't that bad but I was on chemo at the same time and had terrible fatigue and don't know which one cause it, or both. This time he figures only 4 sessions or blasts or whatever they call it. I'd like the PET scan in case it is just scarring so I don't have to have the radiation if it's not. I think it's interesting that the spots are in the lung that had the clot.

They say they're suspicious because they've shown up since the blood clot but I scar badly so it could still be scars. I would assume I scar as badly on the inside as the outside. I had a drain put through my butt cheek when I had the abcesses after the surgery and there's a big ball under my skin now where it was. About the size of a ping pong ball.  And where my port was is really ugly. I have two lovely scars there and I've caught people staring at it.

Jan

Lung Mets

Have you looked into RFA (Radio Frequency Ablation) at all? I've had very good success with that procedure over the years. It's less invasive than radiation. I had to have targeted radiation once due to a lung tumor being close to an artery. It did kill the tumor but it also caused some permanent damage to my lung. I knew that was a possibility but my choice of options was limited. 

The RFA might be worth looking at. Good luck!

-p