menreeq wrote:Why can't you get MRI? I'm curious...
Was told a CT is more effective for a large area of the body. I think MRI are for specific small areas.
This is true. MRI has limitations for field of view. Although it isn't standard right now, if radiation from medical imaging is an issue, it is possible to do MRI of the abdomen and pelvis, and then CT of the chest (to look at the lungs). This is because MRI is not good for evaluating lung nodules. My guess is that most Oncolgists don't order it (mine won't, even though the MRI specialists at Stanford would love it if they would order a PET/MRI for surveillance). Secondly, I have a feeling insurance companies won't pay for it.
Because I am young (like most of you), if I think im just getting too many CTs (quite a subjective opinion), I am gonna switch to MR if I can figure out the insurance logistics. I've only had 2 CTs, both in 2017. I don't mind getting one a year for 5 years. But if I start to have more, not necessarily for surveillance but perhaps complications like small bowel obstruction, I will think hard about MRI for the abdomen/pelvis, and limit CT to the chest.
This is a totally subjective opinion as a patient. I know it's not in the NCCN guidelines.
Stage IIA rectosigmoid CC (T3N0M0)
Dx 6/5/17 @age 41, mom to 5 & 2yo girls
Workup: c-scope, EUS, rectal MRI, CT C/A/P
AdenoCA 5.5cm, WHO Grade 2, 0/22 LN, no distant mets
CEA 1.9 (6/5/17), 0.8 (2/28/18)
No lymphovasc/perineural invasion, clear margins
MSI intact, OncotypeDx RS 7
Lap sig colectomy 6/23/17, no ileo/colostomy
Genetics counseling negative for mutations, 4 VUS
Xeloda monotherapy 8/13/17-1/22/18
PET/CT 3/21/18 NED