Good news CT
Well I just returned from the oncologist and the chest CT Scan I had last week showed no change in the questionable nodules in the last 3 months so the doctor does not think they are cancer. Probably scar tissue from radiation I received years ago. They will continue to monitor and I will go for a regular checkup in 6 months with a full chest, abdomen and pelvis CT. I am looking forward to a good summer!
I am thinking positive thoughts for you all and thanks for your support during the waiting period!
Cheers, Lance
Comments
-
Perfect scansdixchi said:That's Great
Very good news to hear about the scan; it really does help the
rest of us to hear good news like that......hope it continues to
go well for you.....I have a scan April 6 so am hoping I feel as
good as I am sure you do right now.
Barbara
Hi Barbara,
I am sending perfect scan vibes to you right now.
Cheers, Lance0 -
That's GREAT!
That's great news, Lance! I was looking up nodules while talking to Lisa today and see off the Mayo Clinic webpage that 50% of lung nodules are nothing and since CT scans are so good, they pick up on teeny things in about 1/3 of all people who get chest CT's.0 -
great news
Great news Lance! Have they done a PET on the chest to see if they show any activity that way? They're probably scar tissue like it was said, but I'd feel more comfortable if I were in that situation if I also had a PET done. My own nodules did light up on PETs in the past even though they don't now, so I know that mine got to the lungs as metastasized cancer.
Best wishes-
(I like how you sign off with the "Cheers" each time!)
Lisa0 -
No Pets In TOlisa42 said:great news
Great news Lance! Have they done a PET on the chest to see if they show any activity that way? They're probably scar tissue like it was said, but I'd feel more comfortable if I were in that situation if I also had a PET done. My own nodules did light up on PETs in the past even though they don't now, so I know that mine got to the lungs as metastasized cancer.
Best wishes-
(I like how you sign off with the "Cheers" each time!)
Lisa
Hi Lisa,
They don't seem to give PET scans here in Canada very often and I don't know if it is a part of the protocol here for colon cancer. It's not like they don't have them but oddly enough I think they are doing a study even though this seems fairly standard in the USA. I think I would rather think of those spots as benign at this point. If nothing has happened in 3 months then I think I will agree with the doc that they are probably not cancer. I also have not had any mets to the liver and my surgeon says that there is a less than 10% chance that there would be mets to the lung and none on the liver. Ah well, nothing is ever certain in the cancer journey. I am going to give myself a rest from worry and celebrate tonight. I do appreciate your comments though Lisa.
And a special cheers to you! Cheers - Lance0 -
thanks for sharing
Hi Lance,
Thanks for sharing your good news. It is uplifting for all of us to celebrate with you.
Kathleen0 -
Great news, Lance!ldot123 said:No Pets In TO
Hi Lisa,
They don't seem to give PET scans here in Canada very often and I don't know if it is a part of the protocol here for colon cancer. It's not like they don't have them but oddly enough I think they are doing a study even though this seems fairly standard in the USA. I think I would rather think of those spots as benign at this point. If nothing has happened in 3 months then I think I will agree with the doc that they are probably not cancer. I also have not had any mets to the liver and my surgeon says that there is a less than 10% chance that there would be mets to the lung and none on the liver. Ah well, nothing is ever certain in the cancer journey. I am going to give myself a rest from worry and celebrate tonight. I do appreciate your comments though Lisa.
And a special cheers to you! Cheers - Lance
That is wonderful news, Lance!! And although we all emphasize not to pay attention to statistics, I find the ones your onc says to be very interesting.
They have not found any mets on my liver from day 1... I appear to have a met-free liver
But alas, the colon cancer did spread to my right adrenal (which is totally not common for cc) and to the lungs. I had my first PET scan in Aug 2008 where 1 nodule did light up the scan (this was then taken out this past January with the lung ablation). I had another PET scan in March, a month after they had removed my positive adrenal gland and this time a second small nodule lit up the PET scan. The other 5 nodules that showed up on the CAT scan were too small to light up the PET. So, tomorrow's (oops, I mean today's) CAT scan will determine the well-being of my ablated area on the lung and will also be able to determine if the 2nd nodule that lit up the PET has grown or not.
So, I find that interesting (and, oh joy, just my luck to be in the less than 10% chance) to have had the cancer spread to the lungs and not hit the liver.
I'm not sure if that means I should go out and buy a lottery ticket or not
Hugggggs,
Cheryl0 -
ThanksKathleen808 said:thanks for sharing
Hi Lance,
Thanks for sharing your good news. It is uplifting for all of us to celebrate with you.
Kathleen
Thanks for your support everyone. I am happy to bring good news to the board.
Cheryl, I was interested in your comments. Did they do a PET scan as a standard protocol. I know you are out west in BC so I wonder if things are different. If so, that is not the case in Ontario. If it is not standard, what prompted the PET. Now I see you are going for a CT follow up. I wonder how they determine to do a PET or CT scan. And thanks for your continued thoughtful posts. I am thinking of you today and sending positive vibrations out to you.
Cheers, Lance0 -
PETldot123 said:Thanks
Thanks for your support everyone. I am happy to bring good news to the board.
Cheryl, I was interested in your comments. Did they do a PET scan as a standard protocol. I know you are out west in BC so I wonder if things are different. If so, that is not the case in Ontario. If it is not standard, what prompted the PET. Now I see you are going for a CT follow up. I wonder how they determine to do a PET or CT scan. And thanks for your continued thoughtful posts. I am thinking of you today and sending positive vibrations out to you.
Cheers, Lance
Hi Lance i am in Owen Sound and my liver surgeon is in London at University Hospitla....Dr. Qwan.....he asked for a pet before the last surgery because he felt if cancer was cookin someplace else it just wasn't worth it. We went to a clinic in Mississauga and the charge was 2500.00 I phoned the clinic and said I just could not swing that much so he reduced it to about $1200.00 and we paid. for the normal check like mine on Monday we just do the standad CT scan here in Owen Sound. Hope that helps....not all physicians think the PET is helpful
Best Ontario Wishes
~Mags~0 -
Another Canukmaglets said:PET
Hi Lance i am in Owen Sound and my liver surgeon is in London at University Hospitla....Dr. Qwan.....he asked for a pet before the last surgery because he felt if cancer was cookin someplace else it just wasn't worth it. We went to a clinic in Mississauga and the charge was 2500.00 I phoned the clinic and said I just could not swing that much so he reduced it to about $1200.00 and we paid. for the normal check like mine on Monday we just do the standad CT scan here in Owen Sound. Hope that helps....not all physicians think the PET is helpful
Best Ontario Wishes
~Mags~
Hey Mags,
Thanks for the input. Hope you don't get any more snow in Owen Sound. I love that town. Many years ago, we attended the Summerfolk festival which was absolutely wonderful. As far as PET vs CT, it does seem to depend on the doctor and where you are at with your cancer. It's a drag that you have to pay for the PET but I guess it is worth it. Have a great weekend.
Cheers, Lance0 -
PET vs CATldot123 said:Thanks
Thanks for your support everyone. I am happy to bring good news to the board.
Cheryl, I was interested in your comments. Did they do a PET scan as a standard protocol. I know you are out west in BC so I wonder if things are different. If so, that is not the case in Ontario. If it is not standard, what prompted the PET. Now I see you are going for a CT follow up. I wonder how they determine to do a PET or CT scan. And thanks for your continued thoughtful posts. I am thinking of you today and sending positive vibrations out to you.
Cheers, Lance
Personally, I think they should create a DOG scan as well
Lance... I happen to be one of the lucky ones where my CEA is a good indicator that something is going on. After I finished my chemo at the end of Oct 2007, I had my post chemo CAT scan and CEA check 6 weeks after I finished chemo. The CAT scan of my intestines came back perfectly clear. But my CEA was considered slightly elevated at 6.0 (normal for me is 1.5'ish). So, my onc said we would check the CEA again after Christmas but I was going to be in Hawaii for the month of January. So she said that should be ok.. we would check it as soon as I got back. Well, when I got back at the end of January, my CEA now had risen to 18. So it was at that point she ordered a PET scan since obviously my colon was fine.
It was the PET scan the at found the 2 nodules on the lung and the adrenal gland lit up like a Christmas tree. CAT scans were then taken of the lung and that's when they found the other nodules but they were too small to show up on the PET.
So, fast forward to surgery in June to take out the adrenal gland. A month after surgery another PET scan was ordered to see if the cancer from the adrenal (or the colon) had spread and started up anywhere else in the body... all was clear except for the 2 nodules in the lung that we already knew about. So, we have ablated one of them and we shall see what the plan will be for the second one...or if the other small ones have grown as well. Ablation may be appropriate at some point, or going back on chemo if they are growing or there are new growths.
In answer to your question... PETs are not used as standard protocol per se... but if there appears to be a reason (in my case, the CEA is a good indicator if it goes up, then a PET is warranted), they will do them. The cost is phenomenal... but out here, at least in Vancouver, PET scans at the Cancer Agency are on clinical trials so the cost is absorbed. The trial is to prove to BC's Medical Services Plan that they should pick up the cost for any and all PET scans to do with cancer.
Mags... interesting comment about some physicians don't see the benefits of a PET scan. I would seriously change physicians if one of mine had that opinion. PET scans are totally different than CAT scans. That would be like a physician saying "I don't see the benefit in surgery" and would only continue using chemotherapy as the only option for cancer.
PET scans are used with a radioactive glucose that is infused through an IV and then the scan actually scans at the molecular level and takes a scan of the whole body (head to knees). If it finds any fast growing/multiplying cells, the radioactive glucose sticks to those cells for a short period of time, hence those areas light up the scan.
A CAT scan, on the other hand... is focused on one area of the body (IE: the colon, the lungs, the liver, the brain, etc). It is like a glorified 3D xray machine and it can see the organ it's focused on as well as anything surrounding that organ (bones, other organs, etc). It is looking for tumours or masses. It is much more detailed than an xray, but uses the same technology basically. You do not need to be injected with any radioactive substance for a CAT scan since the CAT can not go down to the molecular level. There is a dye that some radiologists use so they can do a contrast scan, but that's just to see things clearer or if there's a blockage, etc.
A Bone Density scan (yet another type of scan) on the other hand, is another full body scan, only it is scanning the bone structures in your whole body. You do have to be injected with a substance and then let it go through your whole body for about 3 hours before having the scan done. This substance will also stick to fast moving cells within the bones, which would indicate if cancer is in the bones.
The PET scan is HUGELY expensive and the reason for that is 1) there are not as many PET scan machines around as there are CAT scan or xray 2) Whichever facility has a PET scan machine has to be within a certain distance of the nuclear facility that creates the radioactive glucose because it loses it's effectiveness very quickly.
Oh dear... there I go, babbling off on a tangent again!! Ok... time to sign off now... and give the dog a hug then head out
Hugggggs,
Cheryl0 -
Thanks CherylCherylHutch said:PET vs CAT
Personally, I think they should create a DOG scan as well
Lance... I happen to be one of the lucky ones where my CEA is a good indicator that something is going on. After I finished my chemo at the end of Oct 2007, I had my post chemo CAT scan and CEA check 6 weeks after I finished chemo. The CAT scan of my intestines came back perfectly clear. But my CEA was considered slightly elevated at 6.0 (normal for me is 1.5'ish). So, my onc said we would check the CEA again after Christmas but I was going to be in Hawaii for the month of January. So she said that should be ok.. we would check it as soon as I got back. Well, when I got back at the end of January, my CEA now had risen to 18. So it was at that point she ordered a PET scan since obviously my colon was fine.
It was the PET scan the at found the 2 nodules on the lung and the adrenal gland lit up like a Christmas tree. CAT scans were then taken of the lung and that's when they found the other nodules but they were too small to show up on the PET.
So, fast forward to surgery in June to take out the adrenal gland. A month after surgery another PET scan was ordered to see if the cancer from the adrenal (or the colon) had spread and started up anywhere else in the body... all was clear except for the 2 nodules in the lung that we already knew about. So, we have ablated one of them and we shall see what the plan will be for the second one...or if the other small ones have grown as well. Ablation may be appropriate at some point, or going back on chemo if they are growing or there are new growths.
In answer to your question... PETs are not used as standard protocol per se... but if there appears to be a reason (in my case, the CEA is a good indicator if it goes up, then a PET is warranted), they will do them. The cost is phenomenal... but out here, at least in Vancouver, PET scans at the Cancer Agency are on clinical trials so the cost is absorbed. The trial is to prove to BC's Medical Services Plan that they should pick up the cost for any and all PET scans to do with cancer.
Mags... interesting comment about some physicians don't see the benefits of a PET scan. I would seriously change physicians if one of mine had that opinion. PET scans are totally different than CAT scans. That would be like a physician saying "I don't see the benefit in surgery" and would only continue using chemotherapy as the only option for cancer.
PET scans are used with a radioactive glucose that is infused through an IV and then the scan actually scans at the molecular level and takes a scan of the whole body (head to knees). If it finds any fast growing/multiplying cells, the radioactive glucose sticks to those cells for a short period of time, hence those areas light up the scan.
A CAT scan, on the other hand... is focused on one area of the body (IE: the colon, the lungs, the liver, the brain, etc). It is like a glorified 3D xray machine and it can see the organ it's focused on as well as anything surrounding that organ (bones, other organs, etc). It is looking for tumours or masses. It is much more detailed than an xray, but uses the same technology basically. You do not need to be injected with any radioactive substance for a CAT scan since the CAT can not go down to the molecular level. There is a dye that some radiologists use so they can do a contrast scan, but that's just to see things clearer or if there's a blockage, etc.
A Bone Density scan (yet another type of scan) on the other hand, is another full body scan, only it is scanning the bone structures in your whole body. You do have to be injected with a substance and then let it go through your whole body for about 3 hours before having the scan done. This substance will also stick to fast moving cells within the bones, which would indicate if cancer is in the bones.
The PET scan is HUGELY expensive and the reason for that is 1) there are not as many PET scan machines around as there are CAT scan or xray 2) Whichever facility has a PET scan machine has to be within a certain distance of the nuclear facility that creates the radioactive glucose because it loses it's effectiveness very quickly.
Oh dear... there I go, babbling off on a tangent again!! Ok... time to sign off now... and give the dog a hug then head out
Hugggggs,
Cheryl
That explains things wonderfully. my CEA has always been at 1.5 or lower so that is probably why they would not consider the more expensive PET..Cheers, Lance0 -
Congratulations. Wonderful
Congratulations. Wonderful news. I'm someone who has had lung nodules and has had "watchful waiting". No change over a 3 month period is GREAT news. It's good you will continue to be monitored, of course, and have a CT in 6 mos. But in the meantime, rejoice and celebrate!
Tara0 -
Thanks TarataraHK said:Congratulations. Wonderful
Congratulations. Wonderful news. I'm someone who has had lung nodules and has had "watchful waiting". No change over a 3 month period is GREAT news. It's good you will continue to be monitored, of course, and have a CT in 6 mos. But in the meantime, rejoice and celebrate!
Tara
How long have they been monitoring your lung nodules. Just wondering. My take on it is that mine may have been caused by radiation received years ago for Hodgkins, so probably scar tissue. It is only really guessing. I will continue to get the follow up scans and just assume they are nothing to worry about.
Cheers, Lance0
Discussion Boards
- All Discussion Boards
- 6 CSN Information
- 6 Welcome to CSN
- 122K Cancer specific
- 2.8K Anal Cancer
- 446 Bladder Cancer
- 309 Bone Cancers
- 1.6K Brain Cancer
- 28.5K Breast Cancer
- 398 Childhood Cancers
- 27.9K Colorectal Cancer
- 4.6K Esophageal Cancer
- 1.2K Gynecological Cancers (other than ovarian and uterine)
- 13K Head and Neck Cancer
- 6.4K Kidney Cancer
- 673 Leukemia
- 794 Liver Cancer
- 4.1K Lung Cancer
- 5.1K Lymphoma (Hodgkin and Non-Hodgkin)
- 238 Multiple Myeloma
- 7.2K Ovarian Cancer
- 63 Pancreatic Cancer
- 487 Peritoneal Cancer
- 5.5K Prostate Cancer
- 1.2K Rare and Other Cancers
- 542 Sarcoma
- 736 Skin Cancer
- 657 Stomach Cancer
- 192 Testicular Cancer
- 1.5K Thyroid Cancer
- 5.9K Uterine/Endometrial Cancer
- 6.3K Lifestyle Discussion Boards