How sensitive are ct scans, etc...

It kind of depends on your PSA level and any distressing symptoms you may (or may not) have..If your PSA is below, say, 30, they seldom find anything with those scans. More than anything, it's a very profitable CYA protocol for the doctors...But...In the unlikely event they DO find metastasis to the bones, at least you will be spared the surgery and radiation treatments .

Now, if you are talking about follow-up scans done months or years after initial diagnosis, that's a different story..Treating advanced PC is a different ball game...

Sorry...I forgot to include my signature.

I'm asking for a couple of reasons.

1)  I had a bone scan around June 2010 and it was clear.  Fast forward 9 months and I had a spot show up (2cm) .  Oh btw, @ a psa of .09.  (So for me, throw away the book that says that one should not find a bone met with psa of less than 20.)...I guess I'm curious why the bone scan in June 2010 didn't see anything.

2)  I see Dr. Myers in a few days.  He may suggest getting scans that show invovlement down to 2-4 mm in diameter.  So, I'm wondering how different his scans are vs. the normal scans.  Just trying to be prepared for different options that he may suggest and evaluate whether it's worth going down that road if offered.

Thanks...

 

Jerry,

My oncologist doesn't have a lot of faith in MRI's or conventional bone scans, this is one reason he is still having me take an advanced level PET scan, to look for early evidence of bone mets in my own case.

David

Post Edited (Purgatory) : 11/29/2011 3:21:35 PM (GMT-7)

John T gave you a good explanation and has walked the walked in multiple methods of scannings, the trip to the Netherlands proved all the USA scans were in fact lacking. Dr. Strum has mention the worthlessness of ct and bone scans (or there imperfections) in books, internet forums and even personal emails. I consider his wisdom of 40 yrs. in PCa and including his pathology background as making him top dog in this and his tenacity to read and study everything. He has stated the biggest achievement in PCa he has seen in his life is the Combidex scanning method, he stated that the USPIO although good also, he and Dr. Barrantsz (Holland) concurred in comparisons that USPIO although very good the images were not as clear as was done through Combidex. These other commonly used scans are used more to rule in you might have mets happening, not to rule out that you are clear and safe. I had clear scans with psa of 46.6 and Gleasons 7,8,9's 12/12 all biopsies 80-95%, nice to hear but not enough to hang your guarantee placard out in the hall way. Alot of overselling and wasted money on PCa patients, the money should be better spent on explicit expert pathology including optional various testings, which actually can define what you might be dealing with and even the genetic cause of your specific PCa or variant types. Ok for scannings on real risky patient scenarios but on low level disease is very wasteful spending.

Jerry- must say you could be dealing with a very aggressive form of PCa, there are some that do not give off psa's to measure if you have heard about such rarer scenarios, possible variant type even. You could still have your pathology reviewed by Bostwick, Oppenheimer, Bonkhoff, and a few others whom could perhaps tell you alot more about your PCa, DNA ploidy analysis, AR receptor expression, genetic testings, variant analysis and such. Discuss with onco-doc about your various markers, panel tests mentioned in Strums book, these can tell you about disease progression without considering psa numbers. Best to you.

Post Edited (zufus) : 11/29/2011 5:56:22 PM (GMT-7)