Should I insist on a PET?

formygirls

Should I insist on a PET?

formygirls

I am stage IIIB with extensive lymph node and chest wall involvement and have had a number of tests since dx to rule out mets. I have had a chest x-ray, liver MRI, breast MRI, abdomen and pelvic MRI which looked at kidneys, colon, pancreas, colon etc and a bone scan. Everything has been normal. I however have not had a PET and it seems like everyone gets one. I have asked my onc about this and she will not do one. She thinks PETs can have a lot of false positives and cause undue stress and that my MRI's were very extensive and I should relax. She did say last time that if I really wanted one she would agree but feels like it is unnecessary. Am I being needlessly worried and should back off/relax or should I push for a PET?

NancyD

PETs do have some false positives because it's based on the sugar uptake of the tumors...and sugar can be absorbed by other highly active/dividing cells and read as "positive" for cancer.  But I think it's a good tool for looking at the whole body in a glance (they do it from head to toe), and comparing like to like (once you've had a PET, it seems logical to compare the old one with a new one to see if things have changed).

I don't think it's "better" than an MRI, just different. I think the tests you've had done to look for mets are pretty focused on the areas it usually shows up first. Unless you were having symptoms in another area, or vague symptoms unattached to a specific spot, I don't think the PET would be of added value.

FYI: Both PETs and MRIs have their downside, as far as being a patient and taking the tests. For a PET you drink a very yucky drink...like drinking a quart of mucous that some thought might taste better if they put some non-descript citrus flavor in. And you have to sit quietly for a while until it is absorbed.  For the MRI, you have to go into that tube...not my best moment...and withstand all the noises.  Both have injectables of some kind going into your system.