Insight from a Radiologist

hardo718

Hi All,

I've wondered many times, as I know lots of you have, why CT scans vs Ultrasounds for follow-ups and is it worth the exposure?

Well, a great friend of mine posed the question to a radiologist that she works closely with and the following is his response:

There is a greater certainty with CT's that the test is negative for evidence of disease than there is with an Ultrasound.  He added that with Ultrasound there's always a chance that you may miss something because you can't see it as well and with cancer follow-ups you want to be certain.

Hope this is helpful to all of you, like me, that feel the need to question & analyze.  :-)

Have a blessed day,

Donna~

icemantoo

Well said, but........

Dona,

 

In the real world the doctors consider a whole host  of concerns. Your specific  diagnosis size and grade, cost , insurance coverage and approval, radiation risk and exposure, guidelines and protocols, results of previous scans etc.

For what it is worth for my 4.2 cm buggar I had CT's for the first 6 years and ultrasounds annually since to follow a small cyst in my other kidney. I also had an additional CT  at year 13. At year 6 the doctor agreed to postpone the CT a few months untill I got on Medicare.

 

 

Icemantoo

hardo718

icemantoo said:

Well said, but........

Dona,

 

In the real world the doctors consider a whole host  of concerns. Your specific  diagnosis size and grade, cost , insurance coverage and approval, radiation risk and exposure, guidelines and protocols, results of previous scans etc.

For what it is worth for my 4.2 cm buggar I had CT's for the first 6 years and ultrasounds annually since to follow a small cyst in my other kidney. I also had an additional CT  at year 13. At year 6 the doctor agreed to postpone the CT a few months untill I got on Medicare.

 

 

Icemantoo

Totally agree

But I guess in an "ideal" situation, the CT is preferred.....at least by the referred to radiologist.  ;-)

Donna~

daisybud

Donna

Thanks for the info from the radiologist. No such thing as too much information, anyway  that's how I feel

Kim

Allochka

CTs are definitely more

CTs are definitely more precise. But ultrasounds with a good equipment and a good doc are also acceptable for those with smaller tumors and lower grades. For example, the ultrasound my husband gets sees even 4 mm angiomiolipoma in kidney, which sounds pretty small for me.

However, the doc performing an ultrasound suggested to get a CT as well once in couple of years.

todd121

Ultrasound and Bone

My understanding is ultrasounds will only pick up soft tissue lesions (and not as well as a CT). Bone lesions won't be caught at all with an ultrasound. Please correct me if anybody knows different.

Todd

Srashedb

MRI, not US

we have been told that MRIs pick up bone and soft tissue although CT are best for lungs; the problem is the cost of MRIs. 

CTs can also follow up on something picked up on soft tissue by MRI.

my husband gets MRIs for his bone stuff and CT for lungs; his last CT in 3/2016 picked up adrenal a lesion <2 cm. the CT suggested follow up with MRI. He had it surgically removed on the 19th with partial adrenolectomy; he's camping in the mountains now.

Sarah

Kmart092

2002 had renal carcinoma lost right kidney ...no radiation or chemo told needed about couple months ago dr detected nodule on my thyroid had fine needle biosy they found in tissue renal carcinoma.. has drspuzzled after 12 yrs ..had bone scan clean.. just waiting results of ct scan couple days ago.. had scans every yrs as well.. have no symptomsmm 

stub1969

Thyroid

Kmart:  if you do a search of this site or "smartpatients" you'll find a few people that did have their RCC travel to their thyroid as a first stop in its distant travel.  I'm hopeful that your CT scan is clean.  With the thyroid they can take it out easily and put you on a synthetic hormone that covers the loss of your thyroid pretty well.

Take care and I'll be praying for good results on your scans.

Stub