We have now received the films. The mass was there on previous films. It was there on films taken during the original treatment. But the current radiologist say, due to motion, they cannot tell if it is growing. My doctor pointed out that if it were growing, it was not growing much. However, he suggests we have another CT scan in six months.
This brings up a very interesting point. At my last doctors appointment my doctor told of a case that a woman had a spot on her lung. The radiologist suggested a series of CT scans over a 2 1/2 year period, at the end of the period there was no change in the size of the spot so the radiologist gave her a clean bill of health. Less than six months later the lady was back with inoperable lung cancer. Her son asked if it was possible that the number of tests caused the cancer. My doctor felt that was a possibility.
For this reason, I suggested a PET scan. My current doctor, a very good MD, who does not treat cancer patients, said he did not have a great deal of faith in PET scans. He did not feel they were ready for prime time and only orders them if suggested by the radiologist. As a result he only sees one or two PET scans per year.
Which brings up a another interesting point, my second oncologist, a very good oncologist, who treats cancer patients all the time, sees hundreds of PET scans each year, thinks the PET scan is an excellent tool. This is the same oncologist that ordered the PET scan five years ago.
So we now have a situation where a mass, identified over five years ago by an excellent oncologist as being cancer free, is now being questioned by an MD who does not treat cancer patients, who wants to keep performing tests to identify if it is cancerous.
My current doctor says there are no right or wrong answers, it is just a decision that I must make.
What decision would you make?
