Chris,

Read Charm's posts and realize that a PETs are great for picking up larger tumors...smaller tumors not so much. I've spent 3 years reading everything on my condition, my medications, any and all procedures I've had to have and pay for, which include multiple PETs. The more you read on it, the more you'll understand.

Here's a few excerpts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology's website you may wish to peruse.

"Surprisingly, in the 7 bronchoalveolar cancer cases, only one PET scan was positive with 6 false negative reports (n= 1/7, 14.2%). A bivariate analysis (chi-square with Yate�s correction for continuity) revealed that the PET scan false negatives are significantly higher (p < 0.0000007) for BAL when compared to other types of NSCLC cancers.
Conclusions: PET scanning does not appear to be sensitive in the stagging and detection of BAL lung cancer with sensitivity of 14%"

"Results: Three of 15 residual lesions showed increased SUV, while 12 lesions obtained negative SUV. Three lesions with positive SUV consisted of 2 true-positive and 1 false-positive lesions. Among twelve lesions were negative SUV, 11 lesions were true-negative, and 1 was false-negative. The sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET in predicting the viability of residual lesions were 66% and 91%, respectively. A lesion of rhabdomyosarcoma which obtained negative SUV in FDG-PET histological showed viable cells. A lesion of another rhabdomyosarcoma which showed positive SUV was evaluated as inflammatory lesion. Conclusions: Although FDG-PET showed excellent sensitivity and fair specificity in predicting the viability of residual lesions in patients with pediatric solid tumors, possibility of false-negativity should give us a caution not to rely on FDG-PET to judge the termination of therapy."

"Results: The overall incidence of confirmed metastatic disease in this study population was 6.0%. Twenty-five (13.5%) of the staging PET scans had areas suspicious for a metastatic lesion(s). Twenty-two patients were further evaluated with subsequent confirmatory imaging and/or biopsy, revealing 10 (45.5%) true positives, and 12 (54.5%) false positives. Of the 157 negative PET scans there was 1(0.5%) false negative and 156 (98.7%) true negatives."

Please READ about the test and do not deal in absolutes. A PET can have a false negative. This site is about providing the "best" information to patients and caregivers. Myself, I try and check any information I post before I post it so I don't lead anyone astray. Respectfully, do the same.

Eric