I had pets, cats and mri's non stop when I was 1st daignosed and ate least 3 of each at Wvu, then at Wheeling cancer center and at Ohio State James Cancer Center at least 2 more of each. Its a wonder I am not glowing in the dark, I thought it was just too much radiation, but let them do whatthey had to and still do

Liz,
There are a lot of very convincing studies to support the use and accuracy of PET scans.

All scans have their limitations and PET scans can not detect cancer clusters that are very small (depending on the scanner, less than ~.5 to ~1cm in size). Also slowly growing, well-differentiated, or small lesions exhibit little or no SUV uptake.

I also understand that the patients glucose levels at the time of the scan is a factor

I believe most PET scans these days are PET/CT scans and despite the limitation, this is considered to be the best imaging tool for the detection of cancer tumors.

My entire medical team (RO, the nuclear medicine director . MO and ENT) think PET scans are "not quite ready for Prime time" (as the old original Saturday Night Live skit went)for Cancer Detection. They all feel that PETscans are invaluable for staging the radiation fields once the tumor is big but the routine false positives plus the inability to detect recurrence as early as a MRI (the even worse false negatives - like I had twice) are worrisome. Even the written radiologist reports of every PETscan I have had state clearly that there should be a follow up MRI to clarify "findings". I think I will be passing on them in the future since their track record with me is zero. Clearly patients like myself were not part of the glowing studies.

I had one PET and that was pre Moffitt. I have had 3 CATs at Moffitt so I have to assume that Moffitt didn't see any value in them at least in my case.

Sorry don i would have to pass on that.MRI every time for me.

Just wondering:

My doctor say that he can't do a PET-CT scan until 3 months after radiation because of the cells healing.

Are there restrictions on an MRI. Isn't a MRI a "picture" of the cancer?

Curious, because I would like to know if the radiation did it's trick sooner than 3 months.

Thanks
Sandyst

It wasn't 3 months later that I had an MRI, maybe like 3 to 5 weeks. Follwed by the big parade of them again. Then this anneurysm put wrench into the game and caused a lot of confusion among the Drs, LOL That isn't supposed to happen once it's been repaired.

On my last recurrence, the tumor didn't show on a recent CT scan, but they used an MRI to plan the surgery after the biopsy showed SCC. UWash CCC has yet to give me a PET scan.

Went to the ENT today. After an exam and feeling around he felt there was little to the PET results and is only recommending a new set of scans in 3 months versus the normal 6. He is a UW doctor and it seems also does not put much stock in the PET results.

I would venture the opinion that these days you actually get a PET/CT scan and not just a PET scan. If you are curious and look at the scans yourself you see that the PET itself had a poor resolution while the CT component is clear. (which is why they do them together).
I noted that the scanning speed has markedly improved since my first scan (newer equipment) and that may be part of the issue here. It might help to consider the following: A negative pet scan is of course good news it means that you do not have cancer OR that it is not big/active enough to be visible. In that respect it is a reflection of the past. Also, you normally get a full body PET/CT (including head/lung......). I make damn sure that I do everything possible to avoid a false positive. (a cold is a bad idea, so it talking and moving supposedly ... I am not going to try to see if this is so).
So far all my PET/CT scans have worked out, from the positive one initially, to the subsequent negative ones. (next one in 11 days)

Sandy re MRI this is not a "picture" of the cancer either, all you see is actually just water which is why MRIs are good for soft tissue.

M