Re: [cancercured] Re: PET scan toxicity?

Don't be apprehensive about the PET scan. It provides very useful
information. Always ask the radiologist for the SUVs (Standardized
Uptake Values) against background for any hot spots that might be
malignant -- not all hot spots indicate malignancy. The FDG that is
used does not feed the cancer, in fact there are strategies for
fighting cancer using deoxyglucose. The main value of the PET is to
determine the affinity for glucose. This can be extremely useful in
helping you select the most sensible treatment options. A low grade
tumor will have a low SUV. In general such tumors tend to be slow
growing and more difficult to treat. With a high SUV the race is
on. I have seen melanomas the size of a football with SUVs up in the
70s. Absolutely amazing. Such tumors can quickly kill the patient,
but they are easier to treat than less aggressive lesions.

Don't worry about the radiation. The unwanted effects of the
radiation are probably every bit as bad as you think they are, but if
you are doing a PET scan then you have greater problems than the
radiation from the diagnostic/assessment procedure. That is, in the
foreseeable future, the interactive information gained from the PET
greatly outweighs the statistically deleterious effects of ionizing radiation.

On the other hand, the high amounts of ionizing radiation from the
PET suggest that, without very good reason, you would not want to
choose this tool for follow-up assessments.

For a comparison of diagnostic radiation exposures, go to:
http://www.hps.org/documents/meddiagimaging.pdf

Vincent

At 05:02 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I am scheduled for a PET scan on Feb. 1 and am fairly apprehensive about it.
>This is what I have learned about it.
>At first radioactive glucose is administered (hope you are not diabetic).
>Radioactive glucose, which cancer is happy to receive is than given
>a chance to flow true your body. You are laying on a gurney in a
>isolation room for 35 minutes while this process takes place. After
>35 minutes you are no longer considered radioactive and are summoned
>to drink a substance to further highlight the problem areas in question.
>Hankering for more fun, you are then submitted to a PET scan (newer
>technology than CT scan). However, the PET scanning requires 30
>minutes of radiation (vs 3 min. with CT scan), hence delivering
>about 20 times more radiation than CT scan.
>Not healthy, and I am very apprehensive about it.
>
>Gloria

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:cancercured-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:cancercured-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cancercured-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/