MRF-Logo2019-Horizontal-RGB
Would abdominal ultrasound likely spot cancer?
REGISTER
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.

Would abdominal ultrasound likely spot cancer?

› Forums › General Melanoma Community › Would abdominal ultrasound likely spot cancer?

  • Post
    • July 29, 2015 at 3:42 am
    DianaD
    Participant

      I have two separate issues going on at the same time: 1) routine blood tests indicate two types of liver disease, tissue damage, as evidenced by high liver enzymes; and, 2) mole on my back that is suspicious of melanoma.  I had an abdominal ultrasound done and I received the results today–"essentially normal," with the one finding that appears abnormal on my reading of the report is calcifications on my spleen.  Liver, gallbladder, bile ducts and pancreas appear normal.  My primary care doctor is looking at my mole this Thursday, 7/30/15, and, based on photos that I sent him of my mole, and my prior history of dysplastic moles, he has already told me that he is referring me to dermatology at the University of Michigan Health Center.  My question is whether the abdominal ultrasound would have likely spotted a cancer metastasis from the mole on my back, if the mole turns out to be melanoma? 

      As added information, the liver damage is most likely caused by meds I've been taking for several years for several autoimmune disorders. 

    Viewing 5 reply threads
    • Replies
        • July 29, 2015 at 4:42 am
        Janner
        Participant

          Ultrasounds will not catch microscopic disease, but no scan will.  However, they will catch tumors.  They use ultrasound all the time for looking at breast lumps and if there were any metastatic tumors, the ultrasound should find at least something worth checking out even if it couldn't define exactly what type of tumor it was.

          • July 29, 2015 at 4:42 am
          Janner
          Participant

            Ultrasounds will not catch microscopic disease, but no scan will.  However, they will catch tumors.  They use ultrasound all the time for looking at breast lumps and if there were any metastatic tumors, the ultrasound should find at least something worth checking out even if it couldn't define exactly what type of tumor it was.

              • July 29, 2015 at 7:38 am
              DianaD
              Participant

                Thank you!

                • July 29, 2015 at 7:38 am
                DianaD
                Participant

                  Thank you!

                  • July 29, 2015 at 7:38 am
                  DianaD
                  Participant

                    Thank you!

                    • July 29, 2015 at 8:13 am
                    Squash
                    Participant

                      I often wonder why they dont utilise ultrasounds more extensively.

                      They are quick and easy and non invasive and can usually identify suspicious activity.

                       I understand that PET/CT scans are more accurate but they also carry a lot of radiation and having them regularly couldnt be a good thing.

                       

                       

                      • July 29, 2015 at 6:53 pm
                      DianaD
                      Participant

                        The ultra-sound was ordered to look for bile duct blockage that could be causing second type of liver damage indicated by blood tests (I inadvertently didn't mention the second type of liver damage that the blood tests indicate, in addition to very elevated enzymes).  I didn't discover the suspicioius mole to a few days later, so the ultrasound had nothing to do with the mole. 

                        • July 29, 2015 at 6:53 pm
                        DianaD
                        Participant

                          The ultra-sound was ordered to look for bile duct blockage that could be causing second type of liver damage indicated by blood tests (I inadvertently didn't mention the second type of liver damage that the blood tests indicate, in addition to very elevated enzymes).  I didn't discover the suspicioius mole to a few days later, so the ultrasound had nothing to do with the mole. 

                          • July 29, 2015 at 6:53 pm
                          DianaD
                          Participant

                            The ultra-sound was ordered to look for bile duct blockage that could be causing second type of liver damage indicated by blood tests (I inadvertently didn't mention the second type of liver damage that the blood tests indicate, in addition to very elevated enzymes).  I didn't discover the suspicioius mole to a few days later, so the ultrasound had nothing to do with the mole. 

                            • July 29, 2015 at 8:13 am
                            Squash
                            Participant

                              I often wonder why they dont utilise ultrasounds more extensively.

                              They are quick and easy and non invasive and can usually identify suspicious activity.

                               I understand that PET/CT scans are more accurate but they also carry a lot of radiation and having them regularly couldnt be a good thing.

                               

                               

                              • July 29, 2015 at 8:13 am
                              Squash
                              Participant

                                I often wonder why they dont utilise ultrasounds more extensively.

                                They are quick and easy and non invasive and can usually identify suspicious activity.

                                 I understand that PET/CT scans are more accurate but they also carry a lot of radiation and having them regularly couldnt be a good thing.

                                 

                                 

                              • July 29, 2015 at 4:42 am
                              Janner
                              Participant

                                Ultrasounds will not catch microscopic disease, but no scan will.  However, they will catch tumors.  They use ultrasound all the time for looking at breast lumps and if there were any metastatic tumors, the ultrasound should find at least something worth checking out even if it couldn't define exactly what type of tumor it was.

                                • July 29, 2015 at 11:59 am
                                arthurjedi007
                                Participant

                                  An X-ray didn't find mine. Then a ultrasound didn't find mine either. It was a ct scan that first found mine. But mine was in bone so maybe that was the difference.

                                  Artie

                                  • July 29, 2015 at 11:59 am
                                  arthurjedi007
                                  Participant

                                    An X-ray didn't find mine. Then a ultrasound didn't find mine either. It was a ct scan that first found mine. But mine was in bone so maybe that was the difference.

                                    Artie

                                    • July 29, 2015 at 11:59 am
                                    arthurjedi007
                                    Participant

                                      An X-ray didn't find mine. Then a ultrasound didn't find mine either. It was a ct scan that first found mine. But mine was in bone so maybe that was the difference.

                                      Artie

                                        • July 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm
                                        Janner
                                        Participant

                                          Ultrasounds do not penetrate very deeply so bone would not be a good candidate.  Soft tissue is what they are good for.  That's why they are used for breast tissue but they are also used endoscopically or vaginally to see some of the internal organs.  They don't provide a large view – only a small view at a single area so are typically used when something is "suspected" versus as a general health check. 

                                          • July 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm
                                          Janner
                                          Participant

                                            Ultrasounds do not penetrate very deeply so bone would not be a good candidate.  Soft tissue is what they are good for.  That's why they are used for breast tissue but they are also used endoscopically or vaginally to see some of the internal organs.  They don't provide a large view – only a small view at a single area so are typically used when something is "suspected" versus as a general health check. 

                                            • July 29, 2015 at 1:06 pm
                                            Janner
                                            Participant

                                              Ultrasounds do not penetrate very deeply so bone would not be a good candidate.  Soft tissue is what they are good for.  That's why they are used for breast tissue but they are also used endoscopically or vaginally to see some of the internal organs.  They don't provide a large view – only a small view at a single area so are typically used when something is "suspected" versus as a general health check. 

                                        Viewing 5 reply threads

                                        Tagged: 

                                        • 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.

                                        Popular Topics