Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I do not know- hopefully someone here does as I 'd like to know. I will google to see what I can find out. Meantime I would say pet is preferred over JUST relying on cts and mris and xrays for this reason. Say you have scar tissue in lung due to pneumonia. They will see it on other scans and want to biopsy-pet shows if ca cells are present. Way more accurate. I had gall bladder sludge - shown on ct - no problem- not stones- no surg! However the same scan showed small things on liver. Probably fatty cysts? Very common. Because of my history - needed to rule out cancer. So- pet showed no cancer cells present. This was several yrs ago so- it is not new and I have had no further gall bladder trouble or any trouble because I immediately researched (google u) and found milk thistle , turmeric and curcumin to be good for both cancer and for gall bladder/ liver. I began taking them. PETs are what my onc uses but only with symptoms. And I trust her. No other regular scans in my situation (3 year idc survivor, er +pr+ her2+ , recd. 6 mos chemo, surg, rads, 1 year herceptin) I felt like I had to research and do whatever I could to build up my health after that. I did some CAM thru chemo - the biggies- astragalus, and cordyceps. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry Re: [ ] Re: I ALMOST DIED FROM INJECTION OF OZONE INTO MY IV PORT You should get a PET scan to see if those tumors are simply dead cells. Does everyone here get PET scans? More accurate than CT- no need to biopsy either. _________________________________________________________________ Rediscover Hotmail®: Get quick friend updates right in your inbox. http://windowslive.com/RediscoverHotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Rediscover_Updates\ 1_042009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 here is PET scah reference From: Bindner <mikeybdc@...>Subject: PET scans"Andreea Ondina Lungu" <lungua@...>Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 11:44 AM Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that this has been done in Sweeden. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/4/1410 Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 , you should talk to NIH about this. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that this has been done in Sweeden. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/4/1410 Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2009 Report Share Posted July 28, 2009 I did. Endo said it was too new a use. When it is more widespread it may become standard of care, but for now AVS is the protocol. It does sound exciting if they can determine hormonal tumors and glands without AVS, though, eh? If volume makes it cheap, I could see going right from initial blood test to the PET scan. So far, for me, the hardest parts of this process were the panic after the 24 hour urine which indicated a mass and the tachycardia from being zapped with a 50mg dose of hydralazine x3. Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Fw: PET scanshyperaldosteronism Date: Tuesday, July 28, 2009, 1:26 PM , you should talk to NIH about this. Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that this has been done in Sweeden. http://jcem. endojournals. org/cgi/reprint/ 91/4/1410 Bindner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Here is the study Bindner Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that this has been done in Sweeden. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/4/1410 Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 THANKS AGAIN. I sent them a note requesting further followup.I am not sure about radiation dose of PET scanning but think it is less than CT. CT scanning is a lot of rads BTW. May your pressure be low!Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MDSpecializing in Primary Aldosteronism the most common cause of "Difficult/Drug Resistant High Blood Pressure". Other research interests focus on the interactions of recent evolutionary forces on the body's ability to handle salt and the effect of dietary salt on blood pressure in populations today.Listed in Best Doctors of America 2009. On Oct 25, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Bindner wrote: Here is the study Bindner Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that this has been done in Sweeden. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/4/1410 Bindner Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Here is information radiation exposure. A PET/CT test has two components: a PET scan and a CT, which are done together. The radiation exposure from CT has a very wide range depending on the type of the test, the area of the body scanned and the purpose of the test. In its simplest form, a CT scan is used only for the localization of abnormalities seen on a PET scan (non-diagnostic scan). The radiation dose from such a scan can be low (e.g. an effective dose of about 7 mSv for a whole body study). However, the effective dose from a high resolution diagnostic scan can be quite high (up to 30 mSv for a whole body CT scan). The effective dose from a PET scan is modest and depends on the activity of the injected FDG (18F-Fluoro deoxyglucose) and is typically 8 mSv for adults using 400 MBq and is the same whether a part of the body or the whole body is imaged. Major reductions in radiation doses from PET/CT scans can be achieved by modifying the acquisition parameters for CT. Conventional radiographic examinations such as chest, abdominal and bone X rays also give a radiation dose but only a fraction of that resulting from a CT examination. Examinations such as ultrasonography and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging do not involve exposure to ionizing radiation. > > Any chance of doing a PET scan rather than an AVS. I note that > > this has been done in Sweeden. > > > > http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/91/4/1410 > > > > Bindner > > > > Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs): > > http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html > > http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 From what I've been reading: Barbara (and others interested in PET scans), PET scans ARE very expensive and they often show areas of concern that have nothing to do with cancer. There seem to be many in the USA who are moving away from using them because they are not cost effective. Barbara, your doctor IS looking out for your well-being. PET scans often lead to more scans and biopsies because of hot spots that turn out to be old injuries, or just inflammation. CT scans use a whole lot of radiation, but they will show you what you need to see. An MRI is a good idea, too - though I see you only have one kidney. A spot on your lung can be lots of things. And this is the catch-22 of cancer... ar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 31, 2010 Report Share Posted May 31, 2010 With all due respect, I disagree. I think PET Scans are quite valuable. I've had 2 and the 2nd one showed changes and confirmed stage 4 compared to the first one. The mets were only 7 mm. PET scans also use far less rads than CT. I would opt for PET over CT. That said, I've led a very quiet life and don't have much history in the area of injuries. Also, if you decided to go to a clinic like the ones in Mexico, their test of choice is a PET scan and they will ask for the DVD of the scan. Louise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.