I had somewhat the same experience as Vin with early MRI's. It was very devastating to complete treatment and then get a negative scan report just to find out basically the same thing, that "it wasn't worth the paper it was written on". The ENT's prefer "direct visualization and palpation" over scans. My docs are the same in many ways even though they are a coordinated team. Even the NCCN guidelines places comments when the 17 member institutions are not in agreement for this or that - which is often. They have ratings for agreement or disagreement.

Vin is absolutely correct about the ultraconservative readings by the reading radiologists (not to be confused with the RO). They dutifully HAVE to report every anomaly they see, no matter how predictable, much like lawyers have to give you every possibility or face malpractice suits. Where one might think that a clear scan is a relief, more often than not, you won't get a clear scan and instead of relieving your angst, it will extend and enhance it. It's so bad, in fact, that when people here report early clear scans I get suspicious about the reading. Then come the follow-up examinations that disprove the scan findings and even more angst - well maybe they missed or they are not telling me something.

Then there are those few who have had early scans that have shown something of a major "region of interest" (ROI).

The "bottom line" is sometimes the dictating factor and also the fact that it is a medical "art" rather than "science". We are all pioneers in cancer research whether we like it or not (AKA lab rats) and there will probably never be a universal standard of care. This discussion will go on endlessly and never have a resolution. We might as well ask "why is there air?"