Radiation MRI vs CT vs ultrasound

livealive
livealive CSN Member Posts: 127
in Kidney Cancer #1
If CT is too much radiation can they do MRI ? I hear ultrasounds are not as confirming. Any facts ?

Comments

  • garym
    garym CSN Member Posts: 1,647
    #2
    Better ask fox...
    He's the resident glow worm on that subject.
  • One Lucky Girl
    One Lucky Girl Member Posts: 68
    #3
    MRIs instead of CTs
    Hi Raj,

    My doctor ordered a yearly MRI (first one at 3 months post-op) alternating with a yearly ultrasound (starting 9 months post-op) for my follow-ups b/c he doesn't want to expose me to the radiation of CT scans. But -- I am considered a very low risk for recurrence and I am not sure if the MRIs are as detailed as CT scans.
  • livealive
    livealive CSN Member Posts: 127
    #4
    One Lucky Girl said:

    MRIs instead of CTs
    Hi Raj,

    My doctor ordered a yearly MRI (first one at 3 months post-op) alternating with a yearly ultrasound (starting 9 months post-op) for my follow-ups b/c he doesn't want to expose me to the radiation of CT scans. But -- I am considered a very low risk for recurrence and I am not sure if the MRIs are as detailed as CT scans.

    MRI CT etc
    Thanks OLG (until I know ur name)
    I am told intermediate risk higher end, but am a statistical anomaly, in a study of 1200+, only 26 had invasion with a <4cm tumor, so there is not much data. That said, the monitoring I am being offered by the surgeon is ultrasound + xray every 6 months, UNLESS I participate in the pazopanib trial which has been an ongoing debate. I since met other doctors who are wiling to monitor more frequently, some every 3 months and some every 6, but the surgeon is cautioning me against radiation, but at the same time the trial will have me do 3 CTs a year. So they have me very confused not only about the trial, but even monitoring.
    Raj.
  • Texas_wedge
    Texas_wedge CSN Member Posts: 2,798
    #5
    livealive said:

    MRI CT etc
    Thanks OLG (until I know ur name)
    I am told intermediate risk higher end, but am a statistical anomaly, in a study of 1200+, only 26 had invasion with a <4cm tumor, so there is not much data. That said, the monitoring I am being offered by the surgeon is ultrasound + xray every 6 months, UNLESS I participate in the pazopanib trial which has been an ongoing debate. I since met other doctors who are wiling to monitor more frequently, some every 3 months and some every 6, but the surgeon is cautioning me against radiation, but at the same time the trial will have me do 3 CTs a year. So they have me very confused not only about the trial, but even monitoring.
    Raj.</p>

    MRI CT etc
    Raj, you are a good searcher - you can easily find innumerable sites on the topic. One I would suggest that seems to be very up-to-date and comprehensive is an 'insider' one (education for medicos) and of the pages there the most relevant are pp 6 and 7 so go to

    http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/488088_5 on the drawbacks of CT, and

    http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/488088_6 entitled MRI POISED TO BECOME "THE" WHOLE-BODY SCREENING STUDY

    Each of CT, PET, MRI and US has its own strengths and weaknesses and some are better for soft tissues, others for bones etc. Your doctors (medical imaging experts, anyway) should be able to tell you all you need to know to decide whether sonograms and MRI will suffice for your future needs.

Discussion Boards