The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Content within the patient forum is user-generated and has not been reviewed by medical professionals. Other sections of the Melanoma Research Foundation website include information that has been reviewed by medical professionals as appropriate. All medical decisions should be made in consultation with your doctor or other qualified medical professional.
A CT scan, I would think — someone with more knowledge please correct me if I’m wrong — can only indicate masses and the like. PET scans indicate “energy activity” (i.e., it measures something that is active rather than static), so it could probably discover more accurately current LN involvement. This is because PET scans measure activity through what areas of the body consume the chemical.
You can see lymph nodes on CT scans as well. Pet scans are more expensive, so more often denied by insurance. It’s my understanding that the Pet makes it easier to see generally what is going on internally, while the CT let’s you see specifically what is going on. Meaning, it’s harder to miss something on a Pet scan.
Not exactly an expert though, as my insurance hasn’t approved a pet scan since 2017.
Viewing 1 reply thread
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
About the MRF Patient Forum
The MRF Patient Forum is the oldest and largest online community of people affected by melanoma. It is designed to provide peer support and information to caregivers, patients, family and friends. There is no better place to discuss different parts of your journey with this cancer and find the friends and support resources to make that journey more bearable.
The information on the forum is open and accessible to everyone. To add a new topic or to post a reply, you must be a registered user. Please note that you will be able to post both topics and replies anonymously even though you are logged in. All posts must abide by MRF posting policies.