Guest guest Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 The trial I was in 8 yrs ago required frequent CT scans to monitor the effectiveness of the drug on the size of my internal nodes. Altogether, in the last 13 yrs I've had more than 20 CTs; that also includes two cardiac ones with much higher radiation levels. According to prevailing reliable research, my chances of developing lung cancer are now 1 in 400. They're not great odds, but still greatly in my favor. Meanwhile I've had 8 yrs of remission during which I've hardly had to think of the word leukemia. No previous tx had come close. Not to veer from our factual format, but that's over 400 sunsets I've seen, countless wonderful moments with family and friends and at least 3 life-changing adventures. No treatment for CLL I know of comes without scary-sounding risks but most of us don't go into trials unless we're pretty sick and our alternatives are limited. I think you should ask your doctor all the pro & con questions you need to -- the " what would happen if... " ones and do some research on your own re CT scans. It's important ask if the trial actually requires them or is it the doctor's preference? Can he reduce the number of them or use an alternative means of imaging and still have the trial stats be valid? Once you have enough information, your husband should be able to figure out what risks he can live. I don't regret my decision but knowing what I know now about the cumulative aspect of CT scans, I might not have been able to overcome my fears. But with the knowledge that's out there now doctors should be, and I mean damn well should be, much more flexible about requiring CTs. 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.