Post Chemo CTScan

Hi MMS, sorry to hear that you are anxious...... the post treatment part of the journey is challenging.

It is important to get that everyone will not be on the same journey, even two people having the same type of NHL and the same treatment can have a completely different post treatment check up regimens as it is often down to where your presentation was and the important need to keep your radioactive exposure to a minimum...... PET scans are far more toxic than CTs.

I actually have never had a PET scan in all my 23 years...... but had regular CTs.

The day my main chemo was fished my consultant told me that they would not do a post treatment CT as they were very confident that the treatment had worked and wanted to reduce my radioactive exposure as I was going into Stem Cell Transplant a month or so after and I would be having scans as part of the planning.

I got a call to go in for a CT a few days later and dutifully went. I saw my consultant the following week and he was very annoyed that I had slipped through the net and had the scan as it was not needed.

The post treatment scan timing is not that critical....... if you had had radiotherapy a scan would have to wait for a good number of months..... even 12 weeks as the treatment would be still working and could give a false positive result.

As always if you need reassurance you should talk this through with your clinical team as they know your case the best.

((hugs))

Hi Mike, thanks for your reply. That has given me some assurance. I have asked my named nurse and although she is lovely and has answered my questions, I didn’t get much information when I queried why it is now a CT scan other than to compare. You have gone through so much and I appreciate the help you give. Take care.

MMS

It makes sense to compare oranges with oranges  as the information on a CT scan is rather different from a PET so they would not be comparing like with like  

I might add only that CT scans determine the size and perhaps number of tumors (or of the mass, in some cases). Thus any growth or shrinkage nt he tumors can be measured with a fair degree of accuracy. PET scans show the SUV and if there is no reason to believe that the cancer has transformed, then I should think that a CT is fine.

Hi M I ve been wondering about the same thing. I thought a PET scan showed if a mass is active or not. Whereas a CG scan shows size and location. I ve only had CT scans and have been told that the largest mass although shrunk by 2/3 is still there. My consultant said he’s confident that I will have a sizeable period of remission and I guess as it’s an indolent follicular NHL that’s ok. But it doesn’t stop me worrying ! I too feel left out after not having a PET scan.

Indeed, the PET does reveal activity, yet necrotic tumor tissue has a higher SUV than surrounding tissue, so it can raise concerns where none is warranted. There is the ever-present concern about ionizing radiation as well.

I have had more than one dozen PETs and 40 plus CT scans over the course of seven years time in a clinical trial and long-term study. Not recommending this, of course, but at the 14 year mark, I am doing perhaps better than expected.