FDG/PET/CT Scans not useful for ILC staging for stage III

Lojo
Lojo Member Posts: 303
edited June 2015 in ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)

I think this might have been posted in the research area, but in case you hadn't seen it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150424155959.htm

· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Selizabeth12
    Selizabeth12 Member Posts: 18
    edited May 2015

    Huh. Very interesting.


    My mom has a CT of chest and abdomen and a full body bone scan before her surgery and will have them again in June when she finishes chemo. I was going to push for a PET because I get the impression that that is much more sensitive and accurate (would rather have a false positive than a false negative right?!) but maybe I won't bother now.. Does anyone know why this article states that

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • wallycat
    wallycat Member Posts: 3,227
    edited May 2015

    I was about to ask the same thing....the article doesn't indicate the WHY of that decision.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kar123
    kar123 Member Posts: 273
    edited May 2015

    That is a strange finding. My ILC wouldn't show up on mammo/us/mri, but did light up on the PET. So confused!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Kathy044
    Kathy044 Member Posts: 433
    edited May 2015

    Here is the link to what I think might be the study abstract, as noted in the news story this is all about 'systemic' staging, looking for mets etc. before staring treatment.

    http://cf.arrs.org/abstracts/oralpresentations/ind...

    Kathy

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Momine
    Momine Member Posts: 7,859
    edited May 2015

    My doc uses plain CT, not PET. He told me the PET is more radiation for minimal gain, so he prefers going with the "lighter" scan.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gkodad
    gkodad Member Posts: 188
    edited June 2015

    The rationale has more to do with PET/CT variables:  1) higher cost, 2) limited availability, 3) is there probability of metastasis and 4) higher false positive rates.  CT scans look at the "shape" of the organ, PET scans look at function - both have limitations.  PET/CTs do both.  The study found only 3% more ILC patients "benefited" [i.e, upstaged to Stage 4] as a result of the PET/CT, so not worth the additional cost and "anxiety" when used as a staging tool. By benefit, they mean the bone scan and CT would also have found the metastisis - not sure why that would be different for ILC than IDC unless it has to do with where ILC tends to metastisize.  My oncologist does the PET/CT as a treatment baseline before chemo only when possibility of metastasis is relatively high,  and he felt like the CT and bone scan were rougher on the kidneys than the PET/CT, and required 2 procedures rather than 1, a big plus for people coming off multiple tests and surgeries within a very narrow time frame. But dealing with a false positive on top of everything else would  be extremely stressful.  Fortunately,  mine was NED.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Woodylb
    Woodylb Member Posts: 1,454
    edited June 2015

    i am ILC and i use PET/CT for baseline in stage IV. If anILC patient does not show activity on a PET when the onc knows there should be one then a SPECT/CT should be used and if it show activity then it is good to use. The answer was given to me by my onc when i inquired about PET not being able to detect ILC.

    Fortunately for me it works and after multiple mets to my liver and bones it showed NED.

    So it is not unuseful to use PET . God bless you all.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories