Hi Jim and Janine, I hope you are both well. I have been fortunate to have had my medical history reviewed by some eminent London doctors. Their conclusion was that they suspect something relating to the chest with the advice to look at another scan no later than 9 months from my last clear CT. I have been researching today and wondered if it would be advantageous to get a PET/CT. I have looked at this site and there is some information from a few years ago, has there been any updates since then? Obviously if there is any LC then it must be small, therefore I am not sure if it would show on the PET. Also, I believe the CT portion of the PET/CT is not as good as a dedicated CT. As my last scan was a CT, is it best to stick with CT for comparison. So as always, I am in a bit of a dilemma, what would be best at picking up an early LC. Many thanks as always.
CT or PET/CT - 1273843
aaron
![]()
Posts:41
Forums
Reply # - April 30, 2016, 04:45 PM
Hi Aaron,
Hi Aaron,
Nothing has changed since those posts were written. The standalone CT has better resolution than the CT portion of the CT/PET, and most oncologists still favor the use of CT rather than PET. Any primary tumor will likely appear on a CT , and some of the "hot spots" detected by PET represent infection or inflammation rather than cancer, which can lead to a great deal of worry as well as unnecessary risk and expense following up such findings. It's also good to compare a current CT to an earlier scan of the same type, although it seems that you may not have anything to compare (a clear CT is always a good thing!)
JimC
Forum moderator
Reply # - May 1, 2016, 02:00 AM
Thanks Jim, people (non
Thanks Jim, people (non medical or without experience I hasten to add) keep telling me to look at a pet scan, I just wanted to check as the way they speak it sounded like the pet is the better scan. I am sure it would be when used for the right thing.
Kind regards Aaron.