Size difference between ultrasound, MRI and PET

Sher0402

I had a Pet/CT fusion today and was told my tumor as 1.4 cm. two weeks ago MRI indicated the tumor was 2.7 and a week before that ultrasound showed 1.8. Any idea which test is most accurate

Batesburg

I would think the MRI would be most accurate given the many views but that is not based on any "science", just what I know (enough to be dangerous) about the tests.

Anybody here a radiologist or married to one??

maxdog

Ultrasound tends to underestimate, MRI tends to overestimate. I don't know about PET.

Leighku

My U/S and MRI were pretty much the same for secondary tumor.

For my primary...original dx showed on U/S as only 5mm, second U/S showed 1.5cm but was actually 2.2cm. MRI was accurate for the primary but mentioned it was "multiple enhancing areas" measuring 2.1cm. I assumed it was smaller and accounting for biopsy swelling but it was accurate. Original dx to surgery was about 6 weeks.

Mammogram was way off and did not detect primary AT ALL. Wish I knew more about dense breast tissue before all this.

keepthefaith

I'm not sure, but I have read the MRI's are more accurate for detecting ILC tumors. I didn't have an MRI. Mine was detected on mammo. For those with dense tissue, the 3D mammo may be better than the "older" type.

Selmada

I was told take the exact size with a grain of salt. Each tech measures slightly differently. Tumors are not nicely uniform squares so one tech may measure it differently than the other based on start and end points in measurement.

I had mammogram, ultrasound and PET scan. They had my tumor between 8-9cm between teh three of htem.

Sher0402

thanks for the info. That is good to know.