Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently found out that you can pay for your own lung cancer screening low dose CT scan after years and years of the medical community saying no to lung cancer screenong (too many false positives).
You do have to have a specific history in order to pay for the privilege (geez) and I barely got in as I quit around 15 years ago which is the cut off. Quit more than 15 years ago and they won't let you buy one (double geez).
So the Dr's office called and said the results were a 1 x 6mm mass in my right lower lobe and I should have another CT in 6 months to see if it has grown.
I'm going to try to get a copy of the results. I've only done a tiny bit of reading so far and most mentions "nodules" or have well defined margins and being something that is sort of normal for x smokers to have and are benign.
Mass sounds a little more ominous.
Scary but trying to not freak. Mostly wondering if my recommendation is one of several and it all depends on who you talk to sort of thing.
I know little about lung cancer, but found this link, below. From what I can see, under 5 mm is considered to be small. I'd definitely get a copy of your results.
The majority of pulmonary nodules discovered on CT scan are ultimately determined to be benign. Unfortunately, an absolute diagnosis cannot be established without a biopsy and histological evaluation... https://www.oncolink.org/experts/article.cfm?id=2405
Thank you for the links. I don't have a medscape membership, is this some wonderful source of info?
So my mass is one step larger than the smallest lowest rate of cancer size. It seems to put me in the repeat scan at either 3 or 6 month range so I find it interesting that my Dr. is recommending the longest span of time. Whereas I of course want the least There seem to be so many miraculous things they can do with small scopes etc. but apparently a biopsy is still sort of invasive here. I guess I have to google more. I'm pretty sure I will be pushing for a second scan at 3 months.
It mentioned reviewing any prior scans or x-rays. I think I had a chest x-ray in a different state about 10 or 11 years ago. I have no idea about how to go about finding it. Not sure a chest x-ray would show it anyway even it had been there. Or I guess I can assume nothing was on the x-ray to be seen because they never said anything?
I don't have a medscape membership, is this some wonderful source of info?
Medscape is free; interesting info on there.
Quote:
It seems to put me in the repeat scan at either 3 or 6 month range so I find it interesting that my Dr. is recommending the longest span of time. Whereas I of course want the least
Possibly because you have no other symptoms they are saying 6 months? Regardless, like any patient, I would push for 3.
Quote:
I think I had a chest x-ray in a different state about 10 or 11 years ago.
You're right; that's too long ago to be of any use now.
"For those >4 to 6 mm, repeat imaging is recommended at 12 months and if no growth is detected, no addition follow-up is needed. For nodules >6 to 8 mm, follow-up between 6 and 12 months is recommended, and then again between 18 and 24 months if unchanged. For those with clinical risk factors for cancer (smoking history or other risks) the recommendations in each size category were the same as the low-risk group in the next size category up."
It looks like repeating the scan in six to twelve months best fits your situation. Three months might be too soon to see any change, if there is any. Overall, from what you describe the risk of malignancy appears low.
I'm trying to get a copy of the report and look for words like speripherical, well circumscribed or other word clue. I hope that because this is an 80.00 test that the report isn't............a quickie short report. I was hoping to get an idea of whether I would get COPD as I got older. I think they can tell but maybe don't read it out in a report.
I was hoping to get an idea of whether I would get COPD as I got older. I think they can tell but maybe don't read it out in a report.
A CT scan won't show if a person WILL get COPD in the future. It can only show if they already have it.
And you do want to wait 6 months before you get a followup CT scan; 3 months is probably too soon to see if there's any change in the nodule's size, which would mean a radiation exposure for nothing.
There are other steps before biopsy. Lung cancer biopsies can cause problems. They seem to use PET scans a lot for both diagnosis and during treatment. Now there are PET/CT combo scans too.
I hate the idea of waiting while my nodule doubles in size. The only reasons to not get a PET scan before 6 months or at 6 months instead of another CT scan is (1) its expensive and/or (2) my nodule isn't quite big enough. But it seems that the PET/CT combo might work on an almost not quite big enough nodule.
A pulmonary nodule is a small round or oval-shaped growth in the lung. It is sometimes also called a spot on the lung or a coin lesion. Pulmonary nodules are generally smaller than 3 centimeters in diameter. If the growth is larger than that, it is known as a pulmonary mass. A mass is more likely to represent a cancer than is a nodule.
In general, malignant nodules double in size every 1 to 6 months. Nodules with a slower or faster growth rate are less likely to be cancerous.
If the nodule is small enough or if its features suggest a very low likelihood that it represents a cancer, your doctor is likely to follow the nodule over time with repeated chest imaging. If the nodule does not grow over time, it is confirmed to be benign. If a concerning pace of growth is noted, then additional evaluation would be suggested. The interval between scans and the length of follow-up depends on the size of the nodule and the risk of malignancy
Positron emission tomography (PET)-A PET scan can also help to find out if a nodule is malignant or benign. A PET scan uses a radiolabeled substance such as glucose that is absorbed by the nodule, and able to be imaged, providing a picture of the nodule's activity level. Malignant cells have a faster metabolic rates than normal cells, so they require more energy and thus absorb more of the radiolabeled substance. Nodules can light up on PET imaging if they are malignant or if there is active inflammation. Nodules smaller than 8-10 mm are not seen well by PET imaging.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There seem to be so many miraculous things they can do with small scopes etc. but apparently a biopsy is still sort of invasive here. I guess I have to google more. I'm pretty sure I will be pushing for a second scan at 3 months. 
