› Forums › General Melanoma Community › mixed scan results….I think
- This topic has 18 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 1 month ago by
awillett1991.
- Post
-
- March 6, 2013 at 12:56 am
First let me say I know I am talking about very small lesions and some readers will be dealing with much scarier issues, but I also know they will not begrudge me my present apprehension. Two of the things I love about Moffitt are the friendly optimism of my oncologist and the fact she almost always gives me the results of my scans the same day. This time I scheduled my appointments over 2 days with the CT & MRI yesterday afternoon and consultation and infusion today. Due to backups in Radiology my MRI was not finished until 7 PM last night.
First let me say I know I am talking about very small lesions and some readers will be dealing with much scarier issues, but I also know they will not begrudge me my present apprehension. Two of the things I love about Moffitt are the friendly optimism of my oncologist and the fact she almost always gives me the results of my scans the same day. This time I scheduled my appointments over 2 days with the CT & MRI yesterday afternoon and consultation and infusion today. Due to backups in Radiology my MRI was not finished until 7 PM last night. When I saw the doc this morning she did not have the report yet but had looked at the pix. She was pleased saying that my mets continue to shrink. She also points out that she is looking at the images in B&W on a 15" monitor and the radiologists have bigger & sharper screens. The trial coordinator brought in the report Just before we left but I did not read it until we got home. So these are the sizes in mm with previous sizes in ( ): 4×1 (3×1); 5×3 (4×1); 5×3 (5×5); 5×4 (4×4). OK so 2 are down but 2 are up which she did not mention. We did talk about a splenic lesion that continues to grow and is at 2.1 cm now. She does not think that will affect my trial eligibility and we will continue to watch it with the possibility of surgery if all goes well with the others.
Comments?
- Replies
-
-
- March 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
Dan, you scared me for a minute there. I thought you meant 4cm x 1cm! But you meant 4mm x 1mm. Whew!
I think that the variation you see (+ or – 2 mm) is within the error of measurement for a CT scan. I do know that routine MRIs have a resolution of 5 mm because before his gamma knife surgery my brother had to have a special MRI with 1 mm resolution. And MRIs are more sensitive than are CT scans. Therefore, I'm not sure that anyone can say for certain if your tumors are growing or shrinking; they seem pretty stable to me. If your last scan was 3 months ago and your tumors are essentially unchanged now and you have no new tumors, I'd call that a great result! Congratulations!!
-
- March 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
Dan, you scared me for a minute there. I thought you meant 4cm x 1cm! But you meant 4mm x 1mm. Whew!
I think that the variation you see (+ or – 2 mm) is within the error of measurement for a CT scan. I do know that routine MRIs have a resolution of 5 mm because before his gamma knife surgery my brother had to have a special MRI with 1 mm resolution. And MRIs are more sensitive than are CT scans. Therefore, I'm not sure that anyone can say for certain if your tumors are growing or shrinking; they seem pretty stable to me. If your last scan was 3 months ago and your tumors are essentially unchanged now and you have no new tumors, I'd call that a great result! Congratulations!!
-
- March 6, 2013 at 1:22 am
Dan, you scared me for a minute there. I thought you meant 4cm x 1cm! But you meant 4mm x 1mm. Whew!
I think that the variation you see (+ or – 2 mm) is within the error of measurement for a CT scan. I do know that routine MRIs have a resolution of 5 mm because before his gamma knife surgery my brother had to have a special MRI with 1 mm resolution. And MRIs are more sensitive than are CT scans. Therefore, I'm not sure that anyone can say for certain if your tumors are growing or shrinking; they seem pretty stable to me. If your last scan was 3 months ago and your tumors are essentially unchanged now and you have no new tumors, I'd call that a great result! Congratulations!!
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:05 am
I know the main wish you must have is that all things considered measurable leasions would just EVAPORATE!!! However, in melanoma world…sounds like a basically stable report which is good! Dr. Weber has mentioned to me several times…not to mention what’s in the literature….that, like ipi, anti-PD1 can cause an inflammatory-like process in existing tumors that causes them to appear larger on scans before they demonstrate an ultimate reduction in size. (Not that your lesiions were appreciably larger…but still…) Hang in there! You got this!!! CPS Did you get the 6 vaccine injections every 2 weeks for the first 6 months? Or just 4? I saw that they deleted two of the vaccines on the protocol in (?) january?
-
- March 6, 2013 at 3:08 am
My arm of the study did not get any vaccines. Even so, I had to sign a new consent today because they dropped the vaccines you mentioned.
Thanks for the responses, all. I feel comfortable now viewing this as a stable report which I will be happy with for the rest of my hopefully long life.
-
- March 6, 2013 at 3:08 am
My arm of the study did not get any vaccines. Even so, I had to sign a new consent today because they dropped the vaccines you mentioned.
Thanks for the responses, all. I feel comfortable now viewing this as a stable report which I will be happy with for the rest of my hopefully long life.
-
- March 6, 2013 at 3:08 am
My arm of the study did not get any vaccines. Even so, I had to sign a new consent today because they dropped the vaccines you mentioned.
Thanks for the responses, all. I feel comfortable now viewing this as a stable report which I will be happy with for the rest of my hopefully long life.
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:05 am
I know the main wish you must have is that all things considered measurable leasions would just EVAPORATE!!! However, in melanoma world…sounds like a basically stable report which is good! Dr. Weber has mentioned to me several times…not to mention what’s in the literature….that, like ipi, anti-PD1 can cause an inflammatory-like process in existing tumors that causes them to appear larger on scans before they demonstrate an ultimate reduction in size. (Not that your lesiions were appreciably larger…but still…) Hang in there! You got this!!! CPS Did you get the 6 vaccine injections every 2 weeks for the first 6 months? Or just 4? I saw that they deleted two of the vaccines on the protocol in (?) january?
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:05 am
I know the main wish you must have is that all things considered measurable leasions would just EVAPORATE!!! However, in melanoma world…sounds like a basically stable report which is good! Dr. Weber has mentioned to me several times…not to mention what’s in the literature….that, like ipi, anti-PD1 can cause an inflammatory-like process in existing tumors that causes them to appear larger on scans before they demonstrate an ultimate reduction in size. (Not that your lesiions were appreciably larger…but still…) Hang in there! You got this!!! CPS Did you get the 6 vaccine injections every 2 weeks for the first 6 months? Or just 4? I saw that they deleted two of the vaccines on the protocol in (?) january?
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:21 am
I've had a similar report in the past. they told me that is especially common with smaller lesions,and it's simply because a different tech did it. every tech measures a little differently so when it's that small you really notice it. Plus some lesions don't show clear edges so the measurement can vary because of that.
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:21 am
I've had a similar report in the past. they told me that is especially common with smaller lesions,and it's simply because a different tech did it. every tech measures a little differently so when it's that small you really notice it. Plus some lesions don't show clear edges so the measurement can vary because of that.
-
- March 6, 2013 at 2:21 am
I've had a similar report in the past. they told me that is especially common with smaller lesions,and it's simply because a different tech did it. every tech measures a little differently so when it's that small you really notice it. Plus some lesions don't show clear edges so the measurement can vary because of that.
-
- March 7, 2013 at 3:12 am
Stable is awesome. My scans seem to always have a little mystery to them. – lymph node here, something there, especially PET. I hate the big ones. Spleens are optional anyway I think, like so many other parts I thought were required!Congrats!
-
- March 7, 2013 at 3:12 am
Stable is awesome. My scans seem to always have a little mystery to them. – lymph node here, something there, especially PET. I hate the big ones. Spleens are optional anyway I think, like so many other parts I thought were required!Congrats!
-
- March 7, 2013 at 3:12 am
Stable is awesome. My scans seem to always have a little mystery to them. – lymph node here, something there, especially PET. I hate the big ones. Spleens are optional anyway I think, like so many other parts I thought were required!Congrats!
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.