PET results - questions

rrob
rrob Member Posts: 158
in Colorectal Cancer #1
My oncologist is out until Thurs. so I had his nurse fax my PET results. I'm stage IV, currently having had two lung ablations for lung mets (the only area showing disease until now). The scan looks okay, but I'm worried because it says "A hypermetabolic soft tissue nodule is seen in the pelvic mesentery, showing a maximal SUV of 2.8 as compared to 3.5 on the previous study." The only problem is that this has never been mentioned on any of the gazillions of previous studies I've had. I'm trying not to panic, but it sounds as if this is a new met. Has anyone had any experience with this type of thing? Thanks.

Rebecca

Comments

  • PhillieG
    PhillieG Member Posts: 4,866 Member
    #2
    My Advice
    Wait until someone who interprets these reports for a living gets back to you as to what it means in English.
    That's my experience with them...
    -phil
  • John23
    John23 Member Posts: 2,122 Member
    #3
    Re:
    "A hypermetabolic soft tissue nodule is seen in the pelvic mesentery,
    showing a maximal SUV of 2.8 as compared to 3.5 on the previous study."

    Well, first of all, what the hell is a Sports Utility Vehicle doing in there?

    Second of all.....

    The Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) is explained here:
    http://radiology.rsna.org/content/235/2/623.long

    And an easier to read one here:
    http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/24/6/1611.figures-only

    And a quick-read seems to indicate that your SUV dropping from
    3.5 to 2.8 is a "good thing", not a bad one.

    Like Phil says, leave the 'splainin' to those that get the BIG bucks,
    and go have a beer. (I am not among the "big buck" group, and only
    qualified to tell you to go have a beer)

    You'll do fine!!


    John
  • sharpy102
    sharpy102 Member Posts: 368 Member
    #4
    John23 said:

    Re:
    "A hypermetabolic soft tissue nodule is seen in the pelvic mesentery,
    showing a maximal SUV of 2.8 as compared to 3.5 on the previous study."

    Well, first of all, what the hell is a Sports Utility Vehicle doing in there?

    Second of all.....

    The Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) is explained here:
    http://radiology.rsna.org/content/235/2/623.long

    And an easier to read one here:
    http://radiographics.rsna.org/content/24/6/1611.figures-only

    And a quick-read seems to indicate that your SUV dropping from
    3.5 to 2.8 is a "good thing", not a bad one.

    Like Phil says, leave the 'splainin' to those that get the BIG bucks,
    and go have a beer. (I am not among the "big buck" group, and only
    qualified to tell you to go have a beer)

    You'll do fine!!


    John

    LOL
    Ha! John!! I was thinking the same first for the abbrev. of SUV. LOL :) And yes, even with the numbers...whatever that is, if it dropped it cannot be bad. :) (although I'm sure doctors beg to differ and somethings that drop aren't good...but in this text it sounded actually a good thing..) :) So, yay for you Rebecca!:)
  • z
    z Member Posts: 1,414 Member
    #5
    sharpy102 said:

    LOL
    Ha! John!! I was thinking the same first for the abbrev. of SUV. LOL :) And yes, even with the numbers...whatever that is, if it dropped it cannot be bad. :) (although I'm sure doctors beg to differ and somethings that drop aren't good...but in this text it sounded actually a good thing..) :) So, yay for you Rebecca!:)

    suv
    suv can also be an indication of inflammation. My oncologist told me for my lung nodule with an suv of 2.3 it was low and normal is under 2.5. When I had the biopsy it proved to be cancer even with the low suv. Now the inflammation may also show a very high suv. So its not cancer until its biopsied. Like the others have said let the high paying professionals interpret the tests. I wish you well.

Discussion Boards