I have had both, multiple times. At first, CT showed mass then had EUS for confirmation of diagnosis. Had baseline PET scan done prior to starting chemo. Had had SO many CT scans during the last year and a half, but only 3 PET scans, which were done to check tumor activity and repsonse to chemo.
I have had multiple CT scans and just one PET scan, as of right now. The PET scan showed much more detail and found several small metastasis in my abdomen after surgery and a full round of chemo. Now I am 3/4 finished with a different chemo regimen. I am due back for more CT scans in a few weeks. I am asking my oncologist to follow up with a new PETscan also.
My husband first had a ct scan where they found pancreatic cancer. They then did an unsuccessful Whipple because it was wrapped around the portal artery when they tried. He then did 4 rounds of chemo which did not shrink it but it also had not spread at all. Or he is getting ready for radiation and when they did the pet scan you can see it wrapped around the artery in the pet scan. Was just wondering why they didn’t do that before the whipple surgery?
My husband first had a ct scan where they found pancreatic cancer. They then did an unsuccessful Whipple because it was wrapped around the portal artery when they tried. He then did 4 rounds of chemo which did not shrink it but it also had not spread at all. Or he is getting ready for radiation and when they did the pet scan you can see it wrapped around the artery in the pet scan. Was just wondering why they didn’t do that before the whipple surgery?
A contrast CT found my tumor. Then, I had one MRI, one PET scan, and also a colonoscopy. I was told the PET scan is only of value in certain situations and I still don't know the criteria they use. Now I only get contrast CTs. I've also wondered why it was a "one and done" test myself! Maybe someone can shed some light on the issue.
I’ve had several CT scans, 1 MRI, and 3 PET scans since being diagnosed in October 2022. I’ve learned since then that the MRI is good for flat lesions and of at least 1cm in length (how my liver lesions were found). PET scan was used prior to my surgery as it measures rapid glucose uptake activity, and was used to verify that the nodules on my kidneys and the hemangioma in my liver were not cancerous. I’ve had 2 PET scans to try and determine if the soft tissue growth around my hepatic artery was cancerous or “scar tissue” as the radiologists who read my CT scan thought (they were wrong), and it failed miserably in detecting it. The dr who did my endoscopy told me after the EUS that that’s where the cancer was. Sorry I do t have any more technical information; just anecdotal information.
My husband first had a ct scan where they found pancreatic cancer. They then did an unsuccessful Whipple because it was wrapped around the portal artery when they tried. He then did 4 rounds of chemo which did not shrink it but it also had not spread at all. Or he is getting ready for radiation and when they did the pet scan you can see it wrapped around the artery in the pet scan. Was just wondering why they didn’t do that before the whipple surgery?
I cannot imagine a surgeon went in to perform a whipple and did not know the extent of artery involvement. Are you at a pancreatic center of excellence?? So sorry he went through that.
I cannot imagine a surgeon went in to perform a whipple and did not know the extent of artery involvement. Are you at a pancreatic center of excellence?? So sorry he went through that.
In another post cpill noted there was a CT scan during initial diagnosis ... she did not mention whether a tumor sample was obtained prior ... based on the CT arterial involvement should have been apparent, right?
In another post cpill noted there was a CT scan during initial diagnosis ... she did not mention whether a tumor sample was obtained prior ... based on the CT arterial involvement should have been apparent, right?
You would think so. I asked for (and received) an MRI one week before my Whipple just to make sure the surgeon had the latest & greatest data available (confirm no mets and no arterial involvement). Last prior imaging was 2 months old by then.
It's another one of those things that probably wouldn't have happened if I hadn't asked.
Even then, the surgeon did an exploratory laparoscopy before opening me up for the full Whipple. Some surgeons actually schedule an exploratory laparoscopy shortly before the Whipple date. It seems unnecessary (to me) to put the patient under general anesthesia twice, but maybe it shortens the actual Whipple or avoids booking and staffing an operating room for 8 hours when there's a high chance of it being cut short (and resources going to waste).
But either way, you'd think they have a really good idea before going in if roadblocks like inoperable arteries are involved. Lesson learned -- ask questions!
Yeah - I think a "quick peek" as a surgeon friend of mine likes to say, is likely (and sadly) due to the large percentage of times the full asset mix is ready to go - and, then they quickly find other extenuating complications and have to back out.
I cannot imagine a surgeon went in to perform a whipple and did not know the extent of artery involvement. Are you at a pancreatic center of excellence?? So sorry he went through that.
Connect
Connect
Like
Helpful
Hug
I have had both, multiple times. At first, CT showed mass then had EUS for confirmation of diagnosis. Had baseline PET scan done prior to starting chemo. Had had SO many CT scans during the last year and a half, but only 3 PET scans, which were done to check tumor activity and repsonse to chemo.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsI have had multiple CT scans and just one PET scan, as of right now. The PET scan showed much more detail and found several small metastasis in my abdomen after surgery and a full round of chemo. Now I am 3/4 finished with a different chemo regimen. I am due back for more CT scans in a few weeks. I am asking my oncologist to follow up with a new PETscan also.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsMy husband first had a ct scan where they found pancreatic cancer. They then did an unsuccessful Whipple because it was wrapped around the portal artery when they tried. He then did 4 rounds of chemo which did not shrink it but it also had not spread at all. Or he is getting ready for radiation and when they did the pet scan you can see it wrapped around the artery in the pet scan. Was just wondering why they didn’t do that before the whipple surgery?
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 ReactionA contrast CT found my tumor. Then, I had one MRI, one PET scan, and also a colonoscopy. I was told the PET scan is only of value in certain situations and I still don't know the criteria they use. Now I only get contrast CTs. I've also wondered why it was a "one and done" test myself! Maybe someone can shed some light on the issue.
I’ve had several CT scans, 1 MRI, and 3 PET scans since being diagnosed in October 2022. I’ve learned since then that the MRI is good for flat lesions and of at least 1cm in length (how my liver lesions were found). PET scan was used prior to my surgery as it measures rapid glucose uptake activity, and was used to verify that the nodules on my kidneys and the hemangioma in my liver were not cancerous. I’ve had 2 PET scans to try and determine if the soft tissue growth around my hepatic artery was cancerous or “scar tissue” as the radiologists who read my CT scan thought (they were wrong), and it failed miserably in detecting it. The dr who did my endoscopy told me after the EUS that that’s where the cancer was. Sorry I do t have any more technical information; just anecdotal information.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
1 ReactionI cannot imagine a surgeon went in to perform a whipple and did not know the extent of artery involvement. Are you at a pancreatic center of excellence?? So sorry he went through that.
gamaryanne,
In another post cpill noted there was a CT scan during initial diagnosis ... she did not mention whether a tumor sample was obtained prior ... based on the CT arterial involvement should have been apparent, right?
You would think so. I asked for (and received) an MRI one week before my Whipple just to make sure the surgeon had the latest & greatest data available (confirm no mets and no arterial involvement). Last prior imaging was 2 months old by then.
It's another one of those things that probably wouldn't have happened if I hadn't asked.
Even then, the surgeon did an exploratory laparoscopy before opening me up for the full Whipple. Some surgeons actually schedule an exploratory laparoscopy shortly before the Whipple date. It seems unnecessary (to me) to put the patient under general anesthesia twice, but maybe it shortens the actual Whipple or avoids booking and staffing an operating room for 8 hours when there's a high chance of it being cut short (and resources going to waste).
But either way, you'd think they have a really good idea before going in if roadblocks like inoperable arteries are involved. Lesson learned -- ask questions!
mmfl,
Yeah - I think a "quick peek" as a surgeon friend of mine likes to say, is likely (and sadly) due to the large percentage of times the full asset mix is ready to go - and, then they quickly find other extenuating complications and have to back out.
-
Like -
Helpful -
Hug
2 ReactionsThey did do a tumor sample but that did not show that it was wrapped around the portal artery until they went in to do the Whipple surgery.