Recent bone scan- confusing results

After meeting with an oncologist a few months ago she recommended a second bone scan to rule out METS that was still unclear from the first bone scan.

The previous bone scan was abnormal - but no one would for sure say if it was mets or not. They did an Xray and then decided to rule it out at that point. Oncology said another needed to be repeated in order to determine whether or not radiation was an option.

Now-- this bone scan is even more confusing. It says "Abnormal Whole Body Bone Scan". There are several places in the ribs, the left hip and L4 that are "worrisome" for mets according to the report.

The doctor left the room and went to find the radiologist who read the first report during our appointment. Radiologist said they cannot rule out mets but given the spots on the ribs they are in more of an "unlikely" spot. The hot spots are on the outside of the rib which are more likely due to trauma verses mets. However, they didn't appear on the last bone scan??

The spots that showed up before on the ribs had less "tracer intensity" compared to the first scan.

In summary, the doctor said he "didnt know how to process this information". It wouldn't make sense that the Lupron would get rid of two spots but now see 5 new spots. He said it could be arthritis that didnt appear on the last scan...?

He's going to consult with the oncologist and then possibly do an MRI of the hip - which is where there is some pain. He said if there is a lesion on the hip due to mets he should be able to see it. He said thats why they did Xrays of the ribs -- and no lesions appeared.

Has anyone else had conflicting bone scan results?

They are also rechecking the PSA -- previously it was .03 in July. Hopefully it is still undetectable .... should know the results sometime today...

Very worried... nothing ever seems constant with this PCa -- everytime you have a victory there is another hurdle!

Docs should openly tell all cancer patients the truth about scans....they are not perfected and not really accurate enough to rule out 'mets', more to rule in that you have known 'mets'. These scans cannot detect 'micro mets' and maybe not find mets that are under 1mm or such. Now whom has told us the truth about scans over a number of years? Drs. Strum, Barken and some others have blantantly advised us on internet forums about how much wasted money goes into these scans. Years ago scans were sold to us like they were perfectly definitive and one could "trust" the findings with your blanking life (lol). Do we finally realize whom is telling us the truth in this???? Has your doc advised you about the accuracy of the scans and its actual limitations? Do you think it is fair to bill insurance companies (you) for tests that are this inaccurate (generally speaking)? Do you think the doc has an oath to tell you the correct status of this situation, or is it better to skirt the issue and not advise a patient of the total factuality of it all?

Sure some scans seem to be superior to others, like USPIO or past use of Combidex, both mentioned in Dr. Strums book from 2004-5 as being more accurate generally than other methods. Plenty of questions on this stuff.

Maybe you could even opt to have an actually biopsy from those scans, as to a certain place to investigate and then have some definity of accuracy, then known thereafter. You may not enjoy the message within this, but it is historically what we are seeing. Hope you can learn or know where you stand in this.

Concerned4You

I had - in order -

Bone Scan (Nuclear medicine type where inject with radioactive material)
CT Scan
XRay

I do agree it is very hard to grasp all the information - I am very lucky in that our son-in-law is a Doctor and understands the various terms. He goes with me to each appointment, frequently during the appointment I think I understand what is going om - than when we leave and are walking to the cars I realize I am missing something, my son-in-law explains that for me.

Keep asking questions until you understand.

Bud