Need input

keystone
keystone Member Posts: 134 Member
in Colorectal Cancer #1

I haven't posted for a while. My husband has now been cancer free for 2 years. He had J-pouch surgery 2 1/2 years ago after Dx of stage 3A rectal cancer. He has been clear every since but had a PET scan this week and it showed moderate activity where the colon was resected. The Onc. Doesn't seem real concerned and thinks it might be inflammation. Having a sigmoidoscopy in next couple of weeks. Has anyone else experienced this?

Comments

  • annalexandria
    annalexandria Member Posts: 2,571 Member
    #2
    Do you know what the SUV for the area is?

    I'm wondering what the doc considers "moderate"...

  • keystone
    keystone Member Posts: 134 Member
    #3
    annalexandria said:

    Do you know what the SUV for the area is?

    I'm wondering what the doc considers "moderate"...

    It was 6.4.

    It was 6.4. He had a lot acidic stools the few days before his PeT, so I'm hoping its irritation.

  • zx10guy
    zx10guy Member Posts: 273 Member
    #4
    keystone said:

    It was 6.4.

    It was 6.4. He had a lot acidic stools the few days before his PeT, so I'm hoping its irritation.

    I don't quite understand why

    I don't quite understand why your oncologist considers 6.4 as moderate activity.  When I had a PET done to check for spread at my initial diagnosis, the SUV for my active tumor was 6.4 just like your husband's.  I also got the PET images and was able to see on the scans the area where my tumor was.  It was lit up like a beacon.  From some research and I'm a bit hazy on the details now, but I seem to recall anything over an SUV of 3 is considered significant.

    Why was a PET ordered for your husband?  Especially since you said it's been some time since his diagnosis?  I don't ever recall anyone getting a follow up PET without a previous history of metastisis or if some other symptoms/blood work came back warranting further investigation.

    If you haven't done so, you need to get a copy of the radiologist's report.

  • annalexandria
    annalexandria Member Posts: 2,571 Member
    #5
    keystone said:

    It was 6.4.

    It was 6.4. He had a lot acidic stools the few days before his PeT, so I'm hoping its irritation.

    I don't want to unnerve you,

    but if it was me, I would want some follow up on this.  All of my tumors had SUVs of 4-5, so above 6 isn't necessarily "moderate".  I don't think the acidic stool would be likely to push it that high.  And it is not uncommon to have recurrence at the resection site, I'm sorry to say.  At the very least, he ought to have a follow-up PET in a timely fashion.  Did they do a CT as well, to get a sense of whether or not anything structural was in that area?

  • annalexandria
    annalexandria Member Posts: 2,571 Member
    #6
    zx10guy said:

    I don't quite understand why

    I don't quite understand why your oncologist considers 6.4 as moderate activity.  When I had a PET done to check for spread at my initial diagnosis, the SUV for my active tumor was 6.4 just like your husband's.  I also got the PET images and was able to see on the scans the area where my tumor was.  It was lit up like a beacon.  From some research and I'm a bit hazy on the details now, but I seem to recall anything over an SUV of 3 is considered significant.

    Why was a PET ordered for your husband?  Especially since you said it's been some time since his diagnosis?  I don't ever recall anyone getting a follow up PET without a previous history of metastisis or if some other symptoms/blood work came back warranting further investigation.

    If you haven't done so, you need to get a copy of the radiologist's report.

    That's right...

    anything over 3.  May be a rough guideline, but in my case, it was always accurate.

  • keystone
    keystone Member Posts: 134 Member
    #7
    annalexandria said:

    I don't want to unnerve you,

    but if it was me, I would want some follow up on this.  All of my tumors had SUVs of 4-5, so above 6 isn't necessarily "moderate".  I don't think the acidic stool would be likely to push it that high.  And it is not uncommon to have recurrence at the resection site, I'm sorry to say.  At the very least, he ought to have a follow-up PET in a timely fashion.  Did they do a CT as well, to get a sense of whether or not anything structural was in that area?

    He is getting a sigmoidoscopy

    He is getting a sigmoidoscopy in the next week. His oncologist does yearly PET scans for 3 years after end of treatments. I pulled another PET scan that had 2 seperate false positives on and the SUv's were 5. That PET was 3 years ago before any treatment had started and both areas ( esophagus and 1 lymph node in groin) were found to be clear. I'm beginning to wonder if he is very sensitive to the "contrast" they use for the PET's. also they had an issue with the patient ahead of Phil and he sat an extended amount of time after the "contrast" was injected. I sure hope this is just another PET scare he has done so well, not had anything show up in his lungs or liver and is so against a permanent colostomy

  • annalexandria
    annalexandria Member Posts: 2,571 Member
    #8
    keystone said:

    He is getting a sigmoidoscopy

    He is getting a sigmoidoscopy in the next week. His oncologist does yearly PET scans for 3 years after end of treatments. I pulled another PET scan that had 2 seperate false positives on and the SUv's were 5. That PET was 3 years ago before any treatment had started and both areas ( esophagus and 1 lymph node in groin) were found to be clear. I'm beginning to wonder if he is very sensitive to the "contrast" they use for the PET's. also they had an issue with the patient ahead of Phil and he sat an extended amount of time after the "contrast" was injected. I sure hope this is just another PET scare he has done so well, not had anything show up in his lungs or liver and is so against a permanent colostomy

    Maybe that's why the doc isn't too worried...

    because he had false positives before.  Keeping my fingers crossed for him that this is another one!

  • keystone
    keystone Member Posts: 134 Member
    #9
    annalexandria said:

    Maybe that's why the doc isn't too worried...

    because he had false positives before.  Keeping my fingers crossed for him that this is another one!

    Thank you!

    Thank you!

  • herdizziness
    herdizziness Member Posts: 3,624 Member
    #10
    annalexandria said:

    Maybe that's why the doc isn't too worried...

    because he had false positives before.  Keeping my fingers crossed for him that this is another one!

    Just joining Ann

    in the fingers crossed that it's just another false positive!!!

    Winter Marie

Discussion Boards