Utwo wrote:CRguy, are you saying that liver ultrasound is as effective as CT scan?
In my situation I have had many CTs and started u/sds / xrays at intervals between CTs since Dx in 2007.
I have an extensive image baseline in all 3 modalities which gives the docs a view of "me" at Dx, at Sx, during chemo,
during follow up and after being kicked out of follow up surveillance protocols.
More images, viewed by more specialists, more often = "more eyes on me" if you take my drift.
I like that A LOT !!!
This way I cover chest/abdomen/pelvis every time. It is very important to me to do so, because
my lung met was missed on an initial CT with regular surveillance.
It got picked up " on a regular chest xray by an eagle eyed radiologist "
NOT saying per se that CTs are inferior to other imaging, just that I had a shitload and the docs have mentioned radiation issues.
The older, lower resolution machines, sometimes fail to image smaller lesions properly. Most new Hi res ones are way better, with lower radiation exposures.
While my u/sds / xrays plan works for me so far I would NOT say they are superior to a hi resolution CT scan.
CTs will be used again as required and my doc and I are probably planning one for next year or late this year.
If I were to have any questionable screening findings with bloods, checkups, imagings ... we would get CTs / PETs / MRIs as needed.
SO if the docs recommend a CT my "advice" is : get one done and go from there.
Most radiologists prefer hi resolution contrast CTs for imaging, where indicated.
Hope that clarifies things a bit