CT vs PET CT

[shamrok]

My urologist was surprised that I got a PET CT instead of a CT. I have a number of MD friends that give alot of advice and can't help themselves with interjecting into my case. My radiation oncologist friend changed my order from a CT to a PET CT because she said it was better and my other friend who worked at my primary care practice got it authorized by insurance.

Was my urologist surprised that I got approved or that I used it at all. In talking with my friends they seem think the PET CT is the better way. I am just wondering if a regular CT is the standard of care route for TC?

I thought this might be a good discussion for those scheduling their initial evaluations.

[Scott]

There was a post on that topic a couple months ago on the TC-NET mailing list. Mark Kantrowitz said:

PET scan has been shown to be effective in evaluating post-chemo residual masses in seminoma. The use of PET scan in evaluating post-chemo residual masses in nonseminoma is equivocal, in part due to the inability of PET scan to detect many cases of teratoma. The use of PET scan for initial staging has not been sufficiently studied, but the preliminary results show no benefit over CT scan for stage I seminoma, and equivocal results for stage I nonseminoma.

The use of PET-CT scanners with TC has not yet been studied.

[shamrok]

Thanks..

Thanks for the note.. my guess is that my urologist probably thought it was overkill and right on board with the research. Now if I could just keep my friends from micro-managing him all would be good.